wb_call_raw

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive-capable, but the description adds useful context: safety is determined per-call by HTTP verb, DELETE is destructive, and confirmation flags are required. It also discloses the return envelope. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and well-organized: purpose first, safety rule second, then a clean Args list, and return format last. Every sentence adds necessary information with no fluff or repetition.

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 raw arbitrary-endpoint tool with 7 parameters and high complexity, the description covers all major invocation concerns: path format, method verb, host, query, body, confirmations, and response shape. Minor ambiguity remains around exactly when each confirmation flag is required, but the reference to wb_call_method's rules mitigates this.

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 full parameter-documentation burden. It compensates by explaining method, path format with an example, host default, query, body, and confirmation flags, adding meaning beyond bare schema titles.

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 opens with 'Execute ANY endpoint, even ones not in the catalog', which is a specific verb-plus-resource statement and immediately distinguishes this tool from catalog-scoped siblings like wb_call_method. The 'full API coverage' phrase reinforces its unique role.

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?

It clearly implies the tool is for endpoints outside the catalog and explains safety based on HTTP verb. It references wb_call_method's confirmation rules, giving a link to sibling behavior, though it does not explicitly state 'use wb_call_method for catalogued endpoints'.

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