planview_execute_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'custom API request' without mentioning that this tool can issue GET, POST, PUT, PATCH, or DELETE calls, may mutate or delete data, requires authentication, or can have side effects. The phrase 'advanced operations' hints at risk but does not meaningfully disclose behavior.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the usage hint is concise. Every word earns its place.

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 raw API execution tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It does not clarify response format, error behavior, endpoint base URL conventions, authentication expectations, or the destructive potential of methods like DELETE. An agent would have too little context to safely invoke this tool compared to the specialized siblings.

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 the input schema already documents method, endpoint, and optional data. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond calling the request 'custom,' which is acceptable but not additive. This warrants the baseline score of 3.

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 identifies the action ('Execute a custom API request to Planview') and distinguishes it from the sibling tools by positioning it for advanced operations not covered elsewhere. It is slightly generic because it does not specify what kinds of requests or outcomes are involved, but it is sufficient for a generic gateway tool.

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 says this tool is 'useful for advanced operations not covered by other tools,' which gives clear when-to-use context and implies that the specialized sibling tools should be preferred when applicable. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state hard exclusion criteria, so it falls just short of a 5.

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