opn_api

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does so well: it discloses default method resolution, model validation of POST bodies, strict=false bypass, dry_run preview behavior, and the critical fact that changes are inert until apply/reconfigure runs. The notable gap is the 'confirm' flag, which for a tool that can restart services is likely a safety gate and is never explained.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying a distinct behavioral fact, with the path grammar front-loaded followed by request-construction and activation caveats. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 7-parameter untyped passthrough with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers request construction and activation but omits the confirm gate, expected error/response shape, and routing guidance against 13 siblings. It is workable but leaves real ambiguity for a high-blast-radius tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: path format with examples, method defaulting, body validation, strict, and dry_run are all given meaning. The 'params' object and 'confirm' boolean remain undocumented in both schema and description, which keeps it short of full coverage.

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 names a concrete mechanism (raw endpoint call) and defines the path grammar as module/controller/action plus positional args, with two worked examples. It is clearly distinct from siblings like opn_api_describe and opn_items, though it never explicitly frames itself as the escape hatch after discovery tools fail.

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 implies usage via examples and points at opn_items for the apply/reconfigure step, but gives no explicit when-to-use rule versus opn_api_search, opn_api_describe, or the dedicated wrappers (opn_service, opn_firewall_confirm). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving the agent to infer that this is the fallback for endpoints without a dedicated tool.

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