app_invoke

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It names the hook types (read, write, describe) but does not disclose side effects, return values, required permissions, or behavior when data is omitted for a write hook. This is a significant gap for a tool that can mutate via the 'write' hook.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core action and scope. It could optionally include a brief note about parameters or return behavior, but the current structure is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate but does not explain what the tool returns, how errors are surfaced, or prerequisites like needing an existing app. The parameter schema covers 'what' but not 'what happens' or 'what you get back', leaving the description incomplete for effective agent invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear descriptions for all parameters, including 'Data payload for write hook' and the slug location. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, just listing hook names that already appear in the enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema carries the load.

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 uses a specific verb ('invoke') and names the resource ('app hook') with targeting info ('dashboard app by slug'). It also enumerates the hook types (read, write, describe), making the action clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tool like dashboard_send, so it misses some differentiation.

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?

The description implies usage context: you use this when you need to invoke a hook on a dashboard app. It gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative tools. This is adequate but lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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