clio_api_request

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the routing endpoint and authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company), but does not explain side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or what the tool actually does. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 relatively short at three sentences, but the first two sentences are somewhat redundant or overly technical ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke'). It is front-loaded with the tool name but contains some fluff. Could be more concise and directly useful.

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 tool appears to be a generic API request function, the description is incomplete. It lacks use-case explanations, expected argument format details, and warnings about potential side effects. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need elaboration, but overall context for safe and effective use is missing.

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?

The description provides some parameter information: 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This adds meaning beyond the schema (which only has type and default). However, it still vague about what constitutes valid arguments, and with 0% schema coverage, more detail was needed. It partially compensates.

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 states it is a 'Clio connector operation' and names the platform tool, but does not specify what the operation actually does. It describes routing details rather than the functional purpose. The name 'api_request' suggests a raw API call, but the description lacks clarity on what actions it performs, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'clio_request'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools (e.g., clio_request, clio_search) with overlapping names, but the description offers no context or exclusions to help an agent decide.

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