调用任意 AGC Connect API

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows it can be destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: automatic auth header addition, site-based domain selection, and return format (HTTP status + raw JSON). It also advises checking documentation first, which is a safety measure. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, then examples, a prerequisite instruction, and return format. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 API caller with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, how to use (with prerequisite), and return format. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but these are less critical given the annotations and the instruction to consult documentation. It is adequately 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 coverage is 86% and the schema descriptions are detailed (path parameters, auth default selection, site options, query array expansion, header business parameters). The description does not add significant parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only mentions auth and site behavior already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool calls any Connect API endpoint with current credentials, adding auth headers and selecting domain by site. It explicitly lists example domains (PMS, Provisioning, Testing, etc.) and distinguishes from dedicated tools by saying it is for interfaces without dedicated tools. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 it is for interfaces without dedicated tools and instructs to first use agc_get_api_doc to confirm method, path, and parameters. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and a prerequisite, effectively routing the agent away from misuse. It also implies when not to use it (when a dedicated tool exists).

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