invoke_tool

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

Describes FastMCP dispatch, context injection for confirmation, and schema stripping. Adds detail beyond annotations (`destructiveHint: true`).

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?

Concise paragraph with example and explanation. Every sentence adds value, though slightly longer than necessary.

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 and description does not explain return value (e.g., what the called tool returns). Omits error handling or side effects beyond destructive hint.

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 0%, so description compensates minimally by explaining `name` comes from `find_tool` and `arguments` is a kwargs dict with an example. No per-parameter details but sufficient for basic use.

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?

Clearly states it calls an Aruba tool by name with arguments dict, distinguishes from `invoke_read_tool` and references `find_tool` for name discovery.

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 example, explains that arguments get FastMCP validation, and notes it handles destructive ops requiring confirmation. Doesn't explicitly contrast with `invoke_read_tool` but context implies it.

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