api_request

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

Only openWorldHint is annotated, so the description carries most of the burden: it discloses that requests are authenticated as the connected account, scoped to the account's own permissions, and that results are not 'clean, guarded' like dedicated tools. It does not warn that DELETE/PUT/PATCH mutate state unrecoverably or mention rate limits, which is the remaining gap.

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 tool's identity and the 'prefer dedicated tools' instruction are front-loaded, and every sentence carries routing or scoping information. Minor deduction for the stray '[#48e53d]' artifact and slightly repetitive path guidance.

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 five-parameter open-world HTTP passthrough with no output schema, the definition covers auth context, scope, discovery prerequisite, and preference ordering well. It stops short of describing response/error behavior, which would help an agent interpret raw results.

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 100%, so all five parameters including the method enum and path format are already documented. The description's note that path is relative (with examples) largely restates the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource — an authenticated request to any ApparelHub agent API endpoint under /agents/v1 — and frames itself as an escape hatch against the many dedicated sibling tools. An agent can distinguish this from list_my_orders, update_product, etc. without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use: PREFER a dedicated tool when one exists, use this only for capabilities no tool covers, and call get_api_reference first to find the path. This is a complete routing instruction with a named prerequisite tool.

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