Raw App Store Connect API request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this tool makes an HTTP request and returns a raw response, nor does it warn that POST/PATCH/DELETE methods will mutate data. The only behavioral trait disclosed is the path prefix constraint. This is a significant gap for a tool that can perform destructive operations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and usage condition, followed by the path constraint and reference link. There is no wasted text, and every sentence serves a purpose. It is concise and well structured.

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 raw API request tool with no output schema, the description does not explain what the agent should expect as a return value (e.g., raw JSON response). It also does not mention error handling, authentication, or rate limits. The link to documentation helps but is not a substitute for a brief note on the response format or side effects. Given the tool's power and lack of annotations, this is incomplete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable constraint on the 'path' parameter (must start with '/v1/' or '/v2/'), which is not in the schema. It also links to the full API reference, which helps the agent understand valid paths and query parameters. This goes beyond the schema and justifies a 4.

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 this is an escape hatch for any App Store Connect API endpoint not covered by a dedicated tool. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by explicitly positioning itself as the fallback, and gives a concrete constraint (path must start with '/v1/' or '/v2/'). The purpose is unambiguous and well differentiated.

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 says to use this tool when an endpoint is not covered by a dedicated tool, which is a clear usage condition. It also provides a path requirement and a link to the full resource reference, giving the agent both the 'when' and the 'where to look' for proper usage. This is strong guidance.

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