Invoke a tool

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

With only openWorldHint annotation, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses two behaviors: argument validation against the tool schema and the need for confirmation_token on mutating tools. It does not mention side effects, return values, or error handling, which are relevant for an execution 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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds validation and token requirements. Information is front-loaded and every clause 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?

The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the essential execution purpose and the token requirement, but does not explain the overall workflow with sibling tools (e.g., use search_tools/describe_tool to find a tool, confirm_action to get token) or what the tool returns. It is minimally complete but would benefit from workflow context.

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 low (33%: only confirmation_token documented). The description adds context by stating 'Arguments are validated against the tool schema,' which explains the 'args' parameter's purpose, and 'by name' clarifies 'name.' It also explains the token's role, but does not detail the structure of 'args' or how to obtain valid tool names/confirmations beyond the schema's note to use confirm_action.

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 specifies the tool's function: 'Run a domain tool by name.' It uses a specific verb ('run') and resource ('domain tool'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_tools and describe_tool, which are for discovery rather than execution.

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 (execute domain tools) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives. It does provide a key conditional: 'Mutating tools additionally require confirmation_token,' which guides when confirmation is needed. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or references to sibling discovery/confirmation workflows.

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