call_api_raw

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds non-obvious gating context: confirm=true is ALWAYS required and destructive/paid actions additionally need HOSTKEY_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=1. That is real auth/prerequisite disclosure beyond the annotations, though it does not describe response/error behavior for this raw passthrough call.

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?

A single dense but well-ordered block: purpose first, examples second, hard requirements third, routing rule last. Every clause earns its place, though the run-on examples-plus-URL sentence is slightly heavy.

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 universal passthrough tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, mandatory confirmation, the destructive env-var gate, and alternative routing, which is most of what an agent needs. It does not characterize the shape of returned data or failure modes, a minor gap for an openWorld raw call.

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% and each of the 5 parameters is documented there, including the confirm gate and the nested-object params convention. The description adds resource examples (iso, s3, rhr) and a docs pointer for the action vocabulary, but nothing the schema does not already cover, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Universal direct InvAPI call by resource and action') and immediately scopes it to 'resources without typed tools', naming concrete examples (iso, s3, rhr). An agent can distinguish this generic escape-hatch tool from the many typed siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (resources lacking typed tools) and when not ('Prefer typed tools when they exist for the needed operation'), plus routes to the docs for the action list. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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