execute_api_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does substantial work: variable resolution precedence, literal {{KEY}} fallback, auth_dependency execution, single 401 retry, capture/assert application, and the body-return/cap semantics. It does not disclose whether the request can mutate state (POST/PUT/DELETE) or what permissions the tool needs, which is the main 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?

Dense but front-loaded: the primary action leads, then resolution rules, then return-shape behavior. Every sentence carries information with essentially no filler, though the single unbroken paragraph of nested clauses is harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does explain the return shape (bodyJson vs bodyPreview, truncation, topLevelKeys) and detail levels, which is exactly what an agent needs. It omits error behavior beyond the 401 retry and any statement of side effects, but is otherwise complete enough to call correctly.

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 only 57%, so the description compensates beyond the schema: it defines the responseDetail levels (minimal/summary/full) with concrete size limits, explains jsonPathSelect narrowing, and clarifies that maxBodyChars applies after jsonPathSelect. It adds little for requestId, timeoutMs, or workspaceRoot, but the value added elsewhere is real.

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+resource: 'Send one request from a YAML definition.' The singular 'one request' implicitly distinguishes it from the multi-step sibling execute_api_flow, though it never names that alternative. Clear purpose, but sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 usage (single request from a YAML definition, run auth_dependency first) but never states when to pick this over execute_api_flow, dry_run_request, or explain_request_context. No explicit when/when-not guidance; usage is only implied by the automation behavior described.

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