Raw Merchant API call

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

The description warns that the tool 'Can create, modify and delete data', which aligns with the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations. It adds context by framing the tool as an 'escape hatch' and reminding the agent to prefer dedicated tools, but it does not disclose additional behavioral nuances such as rate limits or error handling. Given the annotations already cover the safety profile, the extra caution is useful but not extensive.

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 dense but every sentence contributes: purpose, example paths, prefix list, query/body semantics, and a safety warning. It is front-loaded with the core 'escape hatch' concept and never wastes words, making it both informative and scannable.

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 raw API tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It covers the path format, required prefix, query parameter usage, body handling, HTTP method options, and the critical warning about mutation. It gives the agent enough context to safely invoke the tool for arbitrary endpoints.

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?

Beyond the schema's 100% description coverage, the tool description adds semantic depth: it explains the path prefix requirement, gives concrete query parameter examples (dataSource for productInputs writes, updateMask for PATCH), and clarifies that body is sent as JSON. This significantly enriches understanding of how to construct parameters.

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 clearly identifies this as an 'Escape hatch' for calling any Merchant API v1 path directly, specifically for endpoints without a dedicated tool. It names the exact resource (Merchant API v1) and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it should be used only when no dedicated tool exists.

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 this tool ('for endpoints without a dedicated tool') and when not to ('use the dedicated tools when one exists'). It also gives concrete examples of paths and explains the required sub-API prefix, providing actionable guidance that contrasts with the sibling tools.

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