voog_admin_api_call

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true. Description adds value by explaining that Claude will confirm before calling due to destructive potential, and notes GET deprecation. However, it does not detail other behaviors like rate limits or error responses, but with annotations present, the added context is sufficient.

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?

Description is well-structured, front-loaded with main purpose, followed by usage guidance and deprecation warning. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

No output schema is provided, so description should explain return values or response behavior. It mentions forwarding an HTTP request but not what is returned (e.g., parsed JSON) or error handling. For a generic tool, this is a notable gap, though sibling differentiation is well handled.

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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. Description adds meaning by explaining URL construction, body serialization rules, and referencing a coverage doc for endpoint-specific envelope conventions, thus enriching the schema descriptions.

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 it is a generic Admin API passthrough, specifies the URL pattern and HTTP methods, and explicitly distinguishes itself from typed tools by stating when to use it (when no typed tool covers the endpoint).

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: 'Use this when no typed tool covers the endpoint' and lists examples. Additionally warns about GET deprecation and suggests an alternative tool (voog_admin_api_read), giving clear context on when to use vs. not use.

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