centrex_request

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. Discloses authentication, destructive operation guard (env variable). Does not detail rate limits, error handling, or response format, but for a raw request tool the core behaviors are covered.

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, front-loaded with purpose. Every phrase earns its place. No redundancy or filler.

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 simple interface (method, path, body, params) and no output schema, description covers authentication, use case, destructive note. Could mention response format or error handling, but overall adequate for a generic request tool.

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 baseline 3. Description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema provides (HTTP method, path, body, params). No misuse examples or formatting hints.

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?

Clearly states it makes raw authenticated requests to any Centrex API endpoint, and explicitly distinguishes from dedicated tools by positioning itself as a fallback for endpoints not covered. Verb+resource+scope are specific and distinct from siblings.

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 says 'Use this for endpoints not covered by dedicated tools,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. Also notes that DELETE and destructive POST paths require an environment variable, giving an important condition. No misleading exclusions.

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