raw

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

The description states it can invoke any operation, including high-risk destructive ones like withdrawal, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This directly contradicts the annotations, making the tool's safety profile misleading. The description does add nuance about the safety gate, but that cannot reconcile the fundamental contradiction.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('[RAW] Escape hatch') and packs in essential safety behaviors without unnecessary fluff. Every phrase earns its place, maintaining high information density.

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 an open-ended escape hatch, the description covers the essential usage (operationId, args, dryRun, confirm) and notes that valid IDs are in a generated catalog. It lacks details about return format or error handling, but given the tool is generic, it is reasonably complete. The contradiction with annotations is a notable gap that could confuse agents.

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 parameters (args, dryRun, confirm, operationId) are already documented. The description adds minimal extra parameter-level value (e.g., dryRun works even in readOnly), but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 invokes any v3 operation by operationId, positioning it as an escape hatch that bypasses the curated surface. It uses a specific verb ('invoke') and resource ('any v3 operation'), distinguishing it from curated sibling tools that target specific endpoints.

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 implies when to use it ('Bypasses the curated surface') and mentions the safety gate (dryRun, confirm for high-risk ops), giving context for appropriate usage. However, it does not explicitly say 'use when no sibling covers your operation' or provide exclusions.

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