zoho_campaigns_raw_request

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions relative paths, but fails to disclose destructiveness, authentication needs, rate limits, or the role of the 'destructive' and 'confirmation' parameters. This is insufficient for a raw request tool that could be dangerous.

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 short (two sentences) but one is in Spanish, which may limit readability. It is concise but could be restructured to front-load key information like 'Make custom API calls to any Zoho Campaigns v1.1 endpoint'.

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?

Given the complexity of a raw request tool (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on how to construct requests, expected responses, error handling, and safety considerations, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to parameters like 'method', 'path', 'params', 'destructive', or 'confirmation'. The schema itself lacks property descriptions, leaving the agent with no guidance on parameter usage.

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 it is for advanced coverage of official v1.1 endpoints not yet cataloged, indicating a raw request capability. The verb 'cobertura' (coverage) and 'rutas relativas' clarify the scope, but it remains generic and doesn't specify exact actions, distinguishing it from specialized sibling tools.

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 use for uncataloged endpoints, suggesting a fallback when no dedicated tool exists. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus siblings, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of prerequisites or alternatives.

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