voog_admin_api_call

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that Claude will confirm before calling. It also describes the URL construction and serialization behavior. No contradiction, but the description does not add significantly more behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 two short paragraphs: the first explains core functionality, the second is a deprecation notice. Every sentence is informative and 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?

Given the tool's generic nature and the presence of many sibling tools, the description covers all necessary aspects: when to use, how to use, parameter details, deprecation, and relationship to alternatives. The output schema is not needed for a passthrough.

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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between site and voog_list_sites, path formatting requirements, body envelope conventions, and params usage with an example.

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 passthrough for admin API endpoints when no typed tool covers them. It specifies the URL pattern, HTTP methods, and body handling, and differentiates from siblings by noting its use for untyped endpoints.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when no typed tool covers the endpoint, and includes a deprecation warning for GET method with a clear alternative (voog_admin_api_read). This provides excellent guidance on when to use and when not to.

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