Call any Onshape REST endpoint

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

Annotations only carry openWorldHint, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication and implicitly communicates a raw/unvalidated response by contrasting with dedicated tools, but it does not warn that arbitrary POST/DELETE calls can create, modify, or destroy data, nor does it describe response/error behavior or permissions.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct job: scope/fallback, endpoint documentation, and routing rule. No filler or duplicated schema content.

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 an arbitrary-endpoint tool the link to the Onshape REST explorer is essential and provided, along with the path prefix, auth context, and the clear instruction to prefer dedicated tools. It stops short of stating that the raw response is returned as-is and that no validation occurs, but this is strongly implied by the contrast with dedicated tools.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including a path example, method enum, body, and query params; the description adds only the /api/ requirement and a link to endpoint docs. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Make an authenticated request to an arbitrary Onshape REST endpoint') and explicitly scopes it as a fallback ('for anything the dedicated tools do not cover'), which distinguishes it from the many sibling endpoints. It also defines the path convention (/api/) and points to the authoritative endpoint reference.

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 decision rule is explicit: prefer a dedicated tool when one exists, because dedicated tools 'normalise the response and validate the result.' This gives the agent a clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use criterion instead of leaving it to infer from sibling names.

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