Raw Redmine request

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: GET is the default and write methods are gated behind a --allow-generic-write flag, which is an operational prerequisite the annotations don't convey. It also states requests run under the signed-in credential. It does not spell out what a destructive write can damage, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences: the identity of the tool is front-loaded, followed by the routing advice and the write gate. No filler, no 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 4-param generic REST proxy with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: scope, default method, and the write authorization gate. Minor gaps around error behavior on raw calls (the description only says typed tools explain errors better) keep it from a 5.

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 100%, so path format, method enum, and body/query are already documented. The description only restates the GET default and write-gating that the schema's own method/body descriptions already carry, adding little new syntax or format meaning.

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?

Opens with a specific metaphor-plus-scope: an 'escape hatch: any Redmine REST path with the signed-in credential.' An agent immediately knows this is the generic fallback versus the typed siblings, and the description names that distinction explicitly ('Prefer the typed tools').

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?

Tells the agent when not to use it ('Prefer the typed tools: they page, project, and explain errors') and gives concrete reasons for that preference. Lacks an explicit trigger for when the escape hatch IS the right choice, but the 'any Redmine REST path' scope implies it well.

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