sourcery_api_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose one important trait: a client-enforced path allow-list that rejects anything outside the pinned OpenAPI surface before a request is sent. It omits that method can be a mutating verb (POST/PUT/DELETE), auth requirements, and failure semantics, which matter for a raw API passthrough.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the preference rule, with no filler. 'One of the eight verified operations' is slightly cryptic but costs little space.

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 four-parameter generic passthrough with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin: it never enumerates the allowed operations or shows how to construct a request, leaving the agent unable to invoke it reliably without external knowledge.

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 none of the four parameters (path, method, body_json, params_json) are documented in the schema. The description mentions an allow-list for path but never explains format, JSON-string encoding of body_json/params_json, or the set of valid method/path pairs, so the gap is not compensated.

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?

It states a verb and a scope ('call one of the eight verified operations directly') and frames itself as a compatibility bridge, which separates it from the typed siblings. However, it never says what those eight operations are or which resource surface they cover, so an agent cannot tell what it can actually do with it.

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?

It gives an explicit routing rule: 'Prefer the typed tools,' which steers the agent to the specific siblings. It does not say when this fallback is the correct or only option, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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