Call a Nakama server RPC

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

The description mentions encoding behavior but does not disclose potential side effects, error states, or the nature of mutations. Annotations indicate a non-read-only operation, but the description adds little behavioral context beyond the invocation mechanism.

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 sentences with front-loaded purpose and efficient usage conditions. No superfluous words.

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?

Adequate for a general RPC invocation tool, but lacks details on return values, error handling, or prerequisites beyond authentication. The absence of an output schema increases the need for completeness, which is partially met.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds value by explaining that the payload is encoded as the gateway expects and clarifies the role of http_key for unauthenticated calls.

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 states that the tool invokes a registered runtime RPC function by id. It distinguishes itself from authentication and other tools implicitly, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'nakama_execute_action'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use http_key (for unauthenticated calls) and to authenticate first with nakama_authenticate otherwise. However, it does not discuss when to avoid this tool in favor of alternatives.

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