Call a mapped SingleOps route

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

Annotations already flag destructive, open-world, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context that URLs are not accepted and that the target's gates and dry-run settings apply, but it does not explain the practical implications of the destructive hint or confirm/dry-run requirements.

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 two compact sentences with the core constraint front-loaded. There is little waste, though the phrase 'target's gates and dry-run apply' is vague and could be more actionable.

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?

This is a complex meta-tool with seven parameters, nested objects, destructive behavior, and no output schema. The description is too short to explain how to construct body/query/path_params, how confirm works for deletes, or how dry_run defaults affect writes. It leaves too much to be inferred from the schema.

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 only 57%, and the description only elaborates on the route parameter's accepted forms. It does not explain body, query, path_params, confirm, or dry_run beyond what the schema already partially provides. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 a specific action (calling a mapped route) and two accepted identifiers (tool name or route id). It also clarifies that free-form URLs are rejected. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish when to use this meta-tool versus calling a concrete sibling directly.

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 only usage constraint given is that free-form URLs are not accepted and that the target's gates/dry-run apply. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of singleops_discover_tools or a concrete singleops_read_* tool. The schema mentions discover_tools, but the description itself does not route the agent.

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