ashby_call_api

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation by stating that auth, retries, and timeouts are handled automatically and that the raw Ashby response is returned with success, results, pagination fields, and error details. It does not explicitly warn that arbitrary endpoints may mutate or delete data, but destructiveHint already covers that risk; the description adds enough additional context to earn a 4.

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 organized into short, purposeful paragraphs: purpose and examples, usage rules, prerequisite docs, and behavior/output. Every sentence adds value, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

Given the complexity of an arbitrary API endpoint tool and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: when to use it, how to discover parameters, automatic handling of auth/retries/timeouts, and the shape of the response. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly cautioning that some endpoints have side effects beyond what the endpoint name suggests, but the destructiveHint annotation partially covers that.

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 100%, so the parameters endpoint and params are already well documented. The description itself repeats the example endpoint format and refers to ashby_get_api_docs for per-endpoint parameter names, but adds little beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for full schema 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Call any Ashby API endpoint directly') and clearly positions itself as an escape hatch for endpoints not wrapped by the narrow ashby_* tools, listing concrete examples like offer.list and candidate.update. This differentiates it from all sibling tools without requiring schema inspection.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: prefer a dedicated tool when one exists, use this tool only when no dedicated tool covers the endpoint, and call ashby_get_api_docs first if unsure. This directly answers when to use versus alternatives, leaving little to inference.

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