kommo_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It warns that PATCH/POST/DELETE methods alter data, which is critical. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error handling, or the response format, leaving gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 highly concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, usage context, and a critical warning. It is front-loaded and every sentence serves a clear function.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns (presumably raw API response). It also omits details about error handling or required authentication scopes. Given the generic nature of the tool, the completeness is adequate but could be improved.

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 75% (method parameter lacks description). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., re-emphasizing relative path). The schema itself already provides examples and types, so the description's contribution is limited.

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 a generic authenticated passthrough for Kommo API v4, intended for endpoints not covered by the other specific tools. It gives an example relative path and distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools that handle 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?

The description explicitly states 'for anything not covered by the above tools,' providing a clear context for when to use this tool as a fallback. It warns that PATCH/POST/DELETE alter data, but does not explicitly advise against using it when a specific tool exists, though that is implied.

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