hh_call_raw

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

Annotations only supply a blanket destructiveHint=true; the description adds the operationally critical per-verb safety model (GET=read, POST/PUT/PATCH=write, DELETE=destructive), names the write-confirmation flags, and states the confirmation regime. This is real disclosure beyond the structured fields and tells the agent what will actually happen for a given 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?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then structured Args/Returns sections that are easy to scan. Slightly marred by the unresolved '{svc}' template placeholder in the sibling reference, but no wasted sentences.

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 high-risk arbitrary-endpoint tool, it covers safety inference, confirmation requirements, parameter roles, and the return envelope even though an output schema exists. Missing only peripheral context such as auth prerequisites or pagination/rate-limit behavior on the underlying API.

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 carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it gives meaning and format for method (with the verb list), path (leading '/' plus a concrete example), host (override/default), and the two confirmation flags. query and body entries are closer to restatement of their titles, so it's strong but not exhaustive.

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+resource (execute ANY endpoint) and carves out an unambiguous scope distinction vs siblings: 'even ones not in the catalog (full API coverage)', which directly separates it from the catalog-bound hh_call_method / hh_describe_method. An agent can pick this tool 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?

Gives a clear usage condition (raw/uncatalogued endpoints) and points to a confirmation-behavior precedent ('Same confirmation rules as {svc}_call_method'). It stops short of an explicit 'prefer hh_call_method when the endpoint IS in the catalog' exclusion, so the routing rule is implied rather than stated.

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