termix_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses confirmation gating per method, blocked route families (password/key), and that secrets are masked in responses. It omits auth expectations, rate limits, and error behavior, but proactively surfaces the destructive-safety constraints.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one line, then presents constraints as a tight, scannable list where every line carries distinct information. No filler 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation; the description covers the salient behavioral constraints for a mutation-capable passthrough. Auth/permission context is the main missing piece for a tool that can hit arbitrary routes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the two required and two confirmation params: it enumerates valid method values, gives path format examples, and specifies confirm/confirm_phrase requirements including the exact phrase format. Body and query are left undocumented but are largely self-evident.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Call any other Termix API route,' which frames it clearly as the generic passthrough/escape hatch. The 'any other' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from the specific sibling tools (termix_hosts, termix_health, etc.), though it never names them.

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?

Gives concrete operational rules: GET runs immediately, POST/PUT/PATCH require confirm=true, DELETE requires confirm=true plus confirm_phrase, and password/key routes are blocked. It does not, however, tell the agent when to prefer this catch-all over the more specific sibling tools.

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