eda_invoke

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, signaling that this tool can cause writes. The description adds that it applies 'same validation, policy and write checks as direct calls,' which is relevant contextual assurance beyond mere annotations. However, it does not discuss error behavior, return value, or side effects that vary by the discovered tool, so it offers only a modest increment.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two front-loaded sentences with zero filler. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second sets expectations against direct calls. This is concise without sacrificing essential intent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a generic tool with two parameters, no output schema, and write-capable annotations, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain how to retrieve or structure arguments, what return format to expect, or that the tool can fail if the referenced tool runs validation errors. The sibling discover-and-schema tools are implied but never referenced, so the operational loop is incompletely described.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It identifies 'using its complete schema' as the key explanation for the arguments object, and the sibling tool names (eda_tool_schema) hint at the schema source. But it does not explicitly define the 'name' parameter or how arguments map to the target tool's parameters, leaving meaningful gaps for a generic dispatcher.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Execute a discovered tool using its complete schema.' The term 'discovered' clearly points to complementary sibling tools (eda_find_tools, eda_tool_schema) and distinguishes this invocation step from discovery. It doesn't name an alternative directly, but the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Execute a discovered tool' implies the use case, and 'same validation, policy and write checks as direct calls' suggests equivalence to direct invocation, but no alternatives or exclusion conditions are stated. An agent is left to infer the correct context from sibling-tool names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.