call_api_raw

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses the mandatory confirm=true requirement and the additional HOSTKEY_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=1 gate for destructive/paid actions. This is valuable behavioral context for a dangerous raw-call tool and aligns with the destructiveHint=true annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states what the tool is, when to use it, the critical safety requirements, and where to find more details. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a generic raw-call tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it covers purpose, scope, safety gates, examples, and documentation. The openWorldHint and destructiveHint annotations are reinforced rather than contradicted.

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 schema already documents all five parameters. The tool description adds useful resource examples and the confirm restriction, but does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource pattern: a universal direct call to InvAPI by 'resource' and 'action'. It explicitly scopes the tool to resources without typed instruments (iso, s3, rhr) and names those examples, clearly distinguishing it from the many typed sibling tools.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: for resources without typed tools. It also gives a clear exclusion: 'Prefer typed instruments if they exist for the needed operation.' It even links to external documentation for the full action list.

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