invoke_tool

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

Beyond annotations, the description reveals that arguments go through MCPServer validation/coercion, the router's request Context is forwarded, and destructive tools reach confirmation elicitation. This is rich behavioral detail that significantly helps an agent anticipate side effects and prerequisites.

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 front-loaded with purpose, followed by an example and then technical details. It is slightly dense but every sentence contributes value; the example and the explanation of ctx injection are both necessary for correct use.

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 absence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavior thoroughly. It does not mention return values or error handling, but for a dynamic dispatcher these may be tool-specific and not appropriate to detail. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining 'Arguments is a kwargs dict' and providing a working example. It clarifies that name comes from find_tool and that only name + arguments are passed. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 clear, specific action: 'Call an Aruba tool by name (from find_tool).' It provides a concrete example (invoke_tool("create_vlan", {...})) and distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning its role in dispatching destructive ops tools, which is not true of invoke_read_tool.

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 gives clear context: use this after find_tool to call any tool, and it explains how the dispatch works. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer invoke_read_tool or provide exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full guidelines.

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