Call any Yunxin console frontApi endpoint

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description adds the concrete confirm gate for write methods, which is real behavioral context. It doesn't cover auth/permission requirements or what the raw response looks like, but the write-confirmation rule is the operationally important part.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then covers path/query/body and the confirm rule in a few dense sentences with no filler. It is slightly jargon-heavy for non-Chinese readers but structurally tight.

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 passthrough tool with no output schema, the description needs to explain invocation and risk, and it does: the target path shape, how query/body are sent, and when confirm is required. The main remaining gap is that return values and error behavior are unmentioned, though the response is inherently arbitrary for a generic frontApi call.

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 is 3, but the description earns extra by explaining how each parameter maps to the request: path as a /frontApi path, query appended to the URL, body sent as JSON. This is meaning a caller would not infer purely from field descriptions.

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 action (直接调用云信控制台内部 /frontApi 接口) and its role as the fallback for capabilities not yet wrapped by dedicated tools, which distinguishes it from all named sibling tools. The example path (/frontApi/app/queryAppInfo) makes the resource concrete.

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 frames the tool as covering capabilities 尚未封装成专用工具, which routes the agent here only when no dedicated sibling exists. It also gives a hard precondition for writes: non-query POST/PUT/DELETE 必须传 confirm: true.

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