acumulus_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral context: the contract/credentials block is injected automatically (auth handling), fields are merged into the request envelope, nested dicts become nested elements, and list values repeat their element. What it omits is the risk profile — it can reach write endpoints like invoices/invoice_add.php, yet nothing states whether calls are mutating, destructive, or idempotent, which matters for an unrestricted passthrough.

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 purpose and the routing rule are front-loaded in the first two lines, with Args/Returns following in a standard order. The four example paths are slightly verbose but each illustrates a different endpoint shape, so they earn their place; there is no filler prose.

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, the description covers path format, payload construction, credential handling, and that the response is JSON-encoded; an output schema exists so return values need not be detailed. The gap is operational guidance on failure modes (invalid api_path, Acumulus error envelopes) and on which endpoints are safe to 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: api_path is explained with four concrete path examples, and fields is documented with merge semantics, nested-dict-to-element mapping, list repetition, and an explicit exclusion ('Do NOT include the contract/credentials block'). That is meaningfully more than the bare 'Fields'/'Api Path' titles in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Call any Acumulus function endpoint directly') and immediately scopes it against the sibling tools ('endpoints not covered by the dedicated tools below'). An agent can tell this apart from create_invoice, list_picklist, and whoami without opening any 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?

It states the selecting condition clearly: use this only for endpoints not covered by the dedicated tools. That implicitly names the alternatives (the siblings) but does not spell out when-not to use it (e.g. 'do not use this if a dedicated tool exists for the operation you need'), nor does it warn that writes made through this path bypass the validated dedicated tools.

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