Call Operation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burdenholistically, and it does add valuable behavior: 'omadacId is filled in automatically', the path/query/body routing convention, and the recommendation to consult get_operation_schema beforehand. What is missing is the risk profile: as a generic dispatcher this tool can execute mutating or destructive operations, and the description never warns about side effects or what happens with an unknown operation_id or malformed parameters.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, followed by the mechanical routing rules, then the safety valve ('Use get_operation_schema first'). Dense and front-loaded with zero filler or repetition of schema structure.

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 description covers everything needed to invoke the tool: the key input, where each parameter class goes, the auto-filled omadacId, and the prerequisite lookup step. The gaps are the absence of an output schema and no disclosure of response variability or side-effect risk, which is significant for a no-annotation tool that can dispatch arbitrary operations.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates. It defines operation_id as the catalog key, gives concrete examples for path_params ('siteId, apMac'), distinguishes query_params from path_params, and scopes body to 'POST/PUT operations that take one'. The agent can route all four parameters correctly without any help from the schema's bare additionalProperties objects.

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: 'Call any cataloged Omada API operation by its operation_id.' The scope ('any cataloged... operation') immediately differentiates it from siblings: get_operation_schema retrieves schemas, search_operations finds operations, and list_sites/list_devices are specific catalog entries. An agent can tell this is the generic execution/dispatch tool without opening any schema.

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 strong routing guidance ('path parameters... go in path_params; query-string parameters in query_params; a JSON request body... in body') and explicitly names the prerequisite alternative: 'Use get_operation_schema first if unsure what an operation needs.' However, it never states when-not to use call_operation, and it omits search_operations as the step for discovering an operation_id in the first place.

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