adapter.invoke

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotence, and the description adds genuine context beyond them: no arbitrary shell/eval, plus backend qualification and authority gates that remain in force. It does not, however, disclose what damage occurs, whether invocation is reversible or how authority gating manifests at call time, which matters for a destructive, non-idempotent tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and a meaningful constraint second; no wasted words. It is close to optimal in size, though the brevity contributes to the gaps scored elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the definition omits everything else an agent needs: how to name an operation, what 'arguments' accepts, and what 'expected_context_digest' is for. For a destructive, gated, four-required-parameter tool this is inadequate.

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% across four required parameters, including a non-obvious 'expected_context_digest' and an open-ended nested 'arguments' object. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap and leaves the call contract under-specified.

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?

States a specific verb ('Invoke') and resource ('explicitly registered typed capability'), and the 'No arbitrary shell/eval' clause separates it from a generic code-execution tool. However, it never says what kinds of capabilities exist or how this relates to siblings like capabilities.list, so the resource remains abstract.

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?

'Explicitly registered' implies a precondition (the capability must be registered first), which is useful implied usage guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the ten siblings, so the agent must infer routing.

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