CPI Invoke Function Import (run any operation)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that string parameters are auto-quoted, that ALLOW_WRITE is required, and that most function imports change tenant state. This goes beyond the schema and gives important side-effect and prerequisite info, though it does not mention return format or error behavior.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then a key parameter behavior, then a critical permission/safety warning. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff.

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 function-import invocation tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete but lacks guidance on what the response will look like or how to handle errors. The reference to cpi_api_catalog helps, but given the complexity of 'any operation', more context about expected return values or limitations would be beneficial.

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 only 25% (only confirm has a description). The description adds meaning for the params object ('String parameters are auto-quoted') and hints at a permission requirement, but it does not explain method, functionName, or confirm in detail. The auto-quoting note is useful, but the description only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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: 'Invoke any OData function import'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like cpi_query or cpi_write by focusing on function imports, and the reference to cpi_api_catalog provides a complementary lookup resource.

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 gives clear context: it is used to invoke any OData function import, with a pointer to cpi_api_catalog for available functions. It also warns about the ALLOW_WRITE requirement and tenant state changes, which helps the agent decide when to use it, but it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools.

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