ms_call_raw

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing safety inference per HTTP verb, the return format (JSON with ok, status, data), and the need for confirmations. This adds significant context that annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) only partially cover.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose first, then safety, args in a list, return format. No superfluous sentences; every line adds value.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, safety behavior, parameter details, and return format. It is complete for a raw API caller, referencing confirmation rules appropriately.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides clear, standalone explanations for each parameter (method, path, host, query, body, confirm_write, i_understand_this_modifies_data), adding meaning beyond the schema's titles and types.

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 clearly states the tool executes ANY endpoint, even those not in the catalog, providing full API coverage. This distinguishes it from siblings like ms_call_method (which presumably handles cataloged endpoints), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explains safety inference from HTTP verbs and references confirmation rules similar to {svc}_call_method. It implies use for uncataloged endpoints but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or exclude certain cases.

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