api_invoke

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so strongly. It discloses unrestricted access, mutation and file-operation side effects, bypassing of typed save/ownership protections, session-handle behavior of returned COM objects, and verbatim false/zero results. This is rich behavioral disclosure for a powerful, risky tool.

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?

Five terse, high-signal sentences with no filler. Risk warnings, usage constraints, and return behavior are all front-loaded or clearly placed, and every sentence earns its place.

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 5-parameter, no-annotation COM invocation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves critical gaps: action semantics, member syntax, arguments/value format, and handle usage are underspecified. The output schema is present, but the description alone is not enough for an agent to construct valid calls confidently.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters, but it only hints at handle and arguments. It does not explain the action enum (call/get/set), how to specify member, the meaning of value, or the exact shape of arguments. The phrase 'Pass COM arguments as {"handle":"..."}' is also cryptic and does not clearly align with the schema's array-typed arguments.

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 clearly identifies the tool as 'advanced unrestricted local COM access, including mutations and file operations,' which conveys a specific capability and resource. It also distinguishes itself from inspection siblings by instructing 'Inspect the interface first,' though it never explicitly says 'invoke a COM member on a handle' in direct terms.

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?

Provides clear usage context: inspect the interface first, pass COM arguments via handle, and use only documented SDK members within the user's requested work. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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