call_skyportal_api

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It prominently warns that POST, PUT, and DELETE requests permanently modify or delete data and cannot be undone, which is critical for a generic API tool. It does not cover other behaviors like rate limits or authentication, but the write-risk warning is the most essential and well-communicated.

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 very concise: a one-line purpose followed by a clear warning about write risks. Every sentence earns its place, the most important caution is highlighted with a warning emoji, and the structure is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 API call tool with a full schema and output schema, the description covers the main purpose and the critical safety risk. However, it omits any mention of when to use this tool over the many sibling tools, which is a notable gap for overall context. Still, the tool is simple and the description is largely complete for its role.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for the endpoint, method, data, and params. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's function: 'Make an API call to SkyPortal.' It identifies the verb and resource, and the name reinforces the purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this generic caller from the many specialized sibling tools, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this generic API caller versus the dedicated sibling tools (e.g., get_source_photometry). It only provides a write-risk warning, not a 'use when...' explanation or mention of alternatives. This leaves the agent without sufficient decision-making context.

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