Invoke a platform agent tool

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description reveals important runtime behavior: calls are direct with no model in the loop, denied capabilities return errors naming the required capability, and the platform re-checks every call. It also documents the return envelope and optional hard-scoping behavior, adding substantial transparency without contradicting 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 well-structured with USE WHEN, NOT FOR, ARGS, and RETURNS sections. Every section earns its place, and the front-loaded purpose sentence immediately conveys the core behavior. Despite covering a generic dispatch tool, it avoids unnecessary fluff.

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 invoke tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains how to discover invokable tools, how to construct arguments, what the return shape is, and how errors are surfaced. The combination of description, schema, and annotations gives an agent everything it needs to select and call this tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that args must exactly match the target tool's input_schema, that name comes from talonic_list_agent_tools, and that document_ids acts as a hard scope for scope-aware tools—useful semantic context 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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Invoke ONE named tool from the platform's agent tool registry directly." It also differentiates from dedicated tools via the explicit "NOT FOR" clause and presents concrete examples like query_data and describe_data, making the tool's role unmistakable.

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 states when to use the tool (when talonic_list_agent_tools shows can_invoke: true) and when not to use it (when a dedicated talonic_* tool exists). It also tells the agent to pass args exactly as the target tool's input_schema declares, which is actionable routing guidance.

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