sbis_call_raw

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, but the description adds non-obvious semantics: safety is inferred from the HTTP verb (GET=read, POST/PUT/PATCH=write, DELETE=destructive) and that confirmations gate writes/destructive calls. It also discloses the return envelope. It stops short of auth requirements, rate limits, or what a host override actually permits.

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 key capability, then a structured per-argument list and the return shape; almost every line earns its place. The '{svc}_call_method' placeholder is a small readability wart and the return-shape sentence duplicates the output schema.

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 7-parameter, destructive, open-world tool this covers the essentials: verb-based safety mapping, confirmation gating, all parameters, and the response envelope. Since an output schema exists, the return description is redundant, and auth/prerequisite details are absent, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden – and it documents every one (method, path, host, query, body, and both confirmation flags), even giving a concrete path example. The two confirmation flags are named but their exact required values/semantics ('confirmations') remain thin.

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 (Execute) and resource (ANY endpoint), and immediately scopes it against the catalog: 'even ones not in the catalog (full API coverage)'. This lets an agent distinguish it from sbis_call_method without opening either 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 phrase 'even ones not in the catalog' implies this is the fallback when the endpoint is not covered by the catalog tool, and it cross-references 'Same confirmation rules as {svc}_call_method'. That gives clear context and an implicit alternative, but it never states the positive rule ('use this only when the catalog lacks the endpoint') nor any exclusions.

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