api_request

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuine value beyond them: it discloses the raw JSON return shape and the read-only-mode write restriction. It does not explain auth, rate limits, or why destructiveHint=false despite DELETE being available, but with annotations carrying the safety burden this is solid.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then scope examples, return format, and constraint. No wasted wording.

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 7-parameter REST pass-through, the description is nearly complete: it states scope, examples, return format, and the read-only constraint, and the schema supplies the rest. Minor omissions (auth expectations, pagination/error behavior for arbitrary endpoints) keep it just short of full.

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 86%, so the schema already documents body, path, query, confirm, project and if_match with examples and defaults. The description adds nothing parameter-specific (e.g. how method interacts with confirm, or path formats), so the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas applies.

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 specific verb ('Call') and resource ('any LegendKeeper REST v3 endpoint of this project directly'), and the parenthetical examples (boards, calendars, block-level edits, properties, invites, restores) hint at the advanced/raw-escape-hatch role no sibling fills. It is clear what the tool does, though the differentiation from the many specific CRUD siblings is left implicit rather than stated.

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 'advanced:' framing implies this is for operations not covered by the specific tools, and 'Writes are disabled in read-only mode' gives one situational constraint. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer api_request over siblings like create_document or update_map_feature, leaving routing to inference.

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