diadoc_call_raw

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=true, and the description adds real nuance beyond them: safety is inferred from the HTTP verb (GET=read, POST/PUT/PATCH=write, DELETE=destructive) and the confirmation gating via confirm_write / i_understand_this_modifies_data. It does not contradict the annotations, though it could say more about host-override side effects or rate limits.

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 key capability, then uses a clean Args block and a one-line Returns summary. Every line carries information; only the bracketed {svc}_call_method reference is slightly opaque.

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 destructive, open-world raw-call tool the description covers verb-based safety, confirmation flags, all params, and the return envelope (aligning with the output schema). It is largely complete, missing only authorization/permission expectations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by naming every parameter (method, path, host, query, body, both confirmation flags) with brief meaning and a path format example. It adds only light semantics for host override and query/body shape, so not a full 5.

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 ('Execute ANY endpoint') and explicitly scopes it as raw access covering endpoints 'not in the catalog', which cleanly differentiates it from diadoc_call_method and diadoc_describe_method. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the 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?

The 'even ones not in the catalog (full API coverage)' phrasing implies when to reach for this raw tool over catalog-based calls, and it references the confirmation rules of {svc}_call_method. It stops short of an explicit when-not/alternative rule (e.g., 'prefer diadoc_call_method when the method is cataloged').

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