da_api

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: /api/execute blocking, the swagger requirement, and the need for confirm on destructive methods/paths. However, it does not mention authentication context, error behavior, or side-effect risks beyond the confirm flag, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 compact, front-loaded with purpose and usage, then a clean bulleted parameter list. Every sentence contributes information; there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 raw-API tool with 7 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: when to use it, swagger prerequisite, blocked endpoint, and parameter semantics. It could add more detail about error behavior or the exact form of confirm, but the provided guidance is enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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. Every parameter gets an explanation: method lists allowed HTTP verbs, path instructs to keep {placeholders}, path_params maps placeholder values, body is for non-GET requests, impersonate is an optional user context, and confirm is tied to destructive calls. This goes well beyond the bare 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?

States a specific verb ('Call') and resource ('any documented DirectAdmin New API endpoint'), and explicitly frames itself as the generic fallback for operations without a dedicated curated tool. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that cover specific operations.

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 says to use this tool for operations that 'do not yet have a dedicated curated tool,' telling the agent when to choose it and implicitly when not to. It also gives concrete constraints: the path must exist in swagger, and /api/execute is blocked unless ENABLE_EXECUTE=true.

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