invoke_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait (the confirm requirement for DELETE), but says nothing about side effects, whether arbitrary operations are destructive, authentication needs, or how the confirm gate is enforced for other write verbs.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the constraining rule is front-loaded after the core purpose. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the tool's complexity.

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?

This is a high-complexity generic gateway with five under-documented parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description gives no guidance on constructing path/query/body payloads or discovering operation_ids. For a tool of this scope the description is materially incomplete.

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 five parameters, including nested body/path/query objects that carry no structure or examples. The description only hints at the semantics of 'confirm' (via the DELETE note) and says nothing about operation_id, body, path, or query, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Invoke') and resource ('one operation from the official Frame.io V4 OpenAPI catalog'), so an agent can tell it performs a passthrough API call. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as get_tool_schema or upload_local_file, which also touch the tool surface, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It includes one concrete usage rule (DELETE requires confirm=true), which implies when the confirm parameter is mandatory. However, it never states when to prefer this generic invoker over siblings like upload_local_file or how to obtain a valid operation_id, leaving most selection guidance to inference.

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