Call Kilango Operation

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

Despite annotations covering readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints, the description adds substantial behavioral context not in annotations: the If-Match ETag auto-fetch behavior, write-gating via KILANGO_ENABLE_WRITES and API key scopes, and that it's an escape hatch. Annotations mark openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; description's statement that mutating calls are gated aligns and adds crucial detail about those gates. dryRun and idempotencyKey params imply simulation and retry semantics that the description contextualizes well.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: what it does, how to discover ids, how to structure input, and key safety gating. No fluff, no repetition of schema content. Front-loaded with the purpose in the opening line.

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 generic escape-hatch with open-world semantics, the description covers the essential usage contract: discovery mechanism, input structure, If-Match behavior, and write-safety gating. No output schema exists, so return format isn't described, but for a fully generic passthrough tool the return shape is inherited from the target operation which the agent discovers via kilango_describe_operation. Some could argue it should note error/response patterns, but this is near-complete.

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 only 17%, so the description carries much of the burden. The description explains operationId (discover via sibling tools), path/query/body separation, and mentions dryRun indirectly through 'Mutating calls are gated'. However, dryRun, idempotencyKey, and body are not individually explained in prose - the description describes the structure ('provide path params, query, and body separately') but doesn't explain what dryRun or idempotencyKey do beyond what the schema's default/minLength hints suggest. Still, given 5 untouched schema params this is stronger than baseline.

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 is explicit: 'call any operator API operation by its operationId', framing itself as an 'escape hatch'. It clearly distinguishes from the many specific sibling tools (get_portal, update_portal, etc.) by positioning itself as the generic catch-all for operations not covered by wrappers.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use it ('escape hatch' for operations not otherwise exposed), how to discover ids (kilango_search_operations / kilango_describe_operation), how to structure input (path/query/body separately), and important conditions (If-Match auto-handling, write gating by KILANGO_ENABLE_WRITES and API key scopes). This is model guidance for a generic passthrough tool.

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