Call Any IITR AIS Operation

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds a key behavioral constraint: cataloged mutations and uncataloged non-GET calls require confirmWrite=true. This is valuable beyond what annotations provide, though it lacks detail on return formats or side effects.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a critical usage note. Every word carries weight, with no redundancy.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema, openWorldHint=true), the description is minimal. It explains how to address endpoints and confirmWrite, but omits details about return formats, error handling, or the full scope of what 'cataloged' means, which limits completeness for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'identifier' as symbol/alias/URL or API-relative path, and 'confirmWrite' with its condition. However, it does not cover 'body', 'query', 'method', 'headers', or 'responseFormat', so compensation is partial.

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 a cataloged endpoint by symbol/alias/URL or API-relative path. It uses a specific verb and resource, and implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that are specific operations, making it a general-purpose caller.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. It implies that any cataloged endpoint not covered by other tools can be called, but offers no when-not-to guidance or alternatives. The note about confirmWrite is a usage detail, not a guideline for selection.

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