blackboard_raw_api

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

The description adds a behavioral detail beyond the annotations by stating that modifying methods require direct user confirmation. This is valuable context for an agent, as it indicates an additional authorization step for non-read-only operations. The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description complements rather than contradicts them.

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 short sentences that convey the core function and a critical safety caveat. There is no fluff or redundant information; every word earns its place.

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's raw nature, the schema covers parameter details and annotations cover safety, the description provides a sufficient warning about mutating methods. While it does not explain response formats or error handling, those are implicitly raw API responses, and the description is adequate for a pass-through tool. A slightly higher score would require explicit guidance on endpoint paths or response expectations.

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 input schema has 100% parameter descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The baseline of 3 applies here since the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Call a public Blackboard REST API endpoint,' which specifies the action (call) and the resource (public Blackboard REST API endpoint). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which provide high-level operations like listing courses or retrieving user info. The name 'blackboard_raw_api' also reinforces this distinct purpose.

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 provides a clear usage caveat: 'Modifying methods require direct user confirmation through MCP elicitation.' This tells the agent when extra steps are needed for destructive operations. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or say 'use this when no specific tool exists,' the 'public endpoint' qualifier and the existence of specialized siblings imply its role as a fallback or raw access tool.

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