voog_admin_api_call

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds significant behavioral context: it states Claude will confirm before calling, explains that PUT /media_sets/{id} is replace-not-merge, and warns that ordered assets arrays may be applied only partially despite a 200 response. These are valuable operational details beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Although long, the description is well-structured and every section earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then follows with usage direction, a read exception, and clear warnings about known foot-guns. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition of schema fields.

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 passthrough with no output schema, this description provides comprehensive context: URL construction, API token usage, method constraints, typed-tool alternatives, and reliability warnings. It also references additional docs for endpoint-specific envelope conventions, covering the complexity of a broad generic tool.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics by explaining JSON serialization for POST/PUT/PATCH, base host derivation from site config, and endpoint-specific body behavior such as assets arrays being replaced. It does not need to repeat schema details, so this is strong but not maximal.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Generic Admin API WRITE passthrough' and explains it forwards HTTP requests to /admin/api<path> with a specific method set. It also explicitly distinguishes it from voog_admin_api_read by stating 'For READS use voog_admin_api_read', making sibling differentiation clear.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when no typed tool covers the endpoint' and lists examples of covered areas. It also gives a clear exclusion: 'For READS use voog_admin_api_read — this tool no longer accepts method='GET'', and points to typed alternatives for risky operations like media_sets PUT.

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