Call any client (v2) endpoint

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, which align with the description of a POST operation that mutates game state. The description adds transparency by revealing that it sends the test-player bearer token by default and that asPlayer=false switches to api-key-only catalog reads. It does not contradict 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 two concise sentences plus a key note on asPlayer. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the purpose, the second provides usage guidance and examples, the third clarifies authentication behavior. No wasted words.

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 that this is an escape hatch tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It points to external references for exact paths and bodies. It could mention error handling or response format, but for an escape hatch tool, the provided guidance is sufficient.

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%, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains that path should be without the '/v2/client/' prefix, that body should be found in client API references, and that asPlayer defaults to true (test player) but false for catalog reads. This is highly informative.

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 it is an 'escape hatch' for the game-facing API, specifically POST to any /v2/client/* endpoint as the sandbox test player. It provides concrete examples like 'player/me/get-inventory' and distinguishes itself from the many dedicated sibling tools that exist for specific endpoints.

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 'Use for client calls that lack a dedicated tool', giving clear direction on when to use it. It also explains the asPlayer parameter (true for test player, false for api-key-only reads). While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, the implication that dedicated tools should be preferred is strong given the sibling list.

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