ym_call_raw

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains how safety is inferred from the HTTP verb (GET=read, POST/PUT/PATCH=write, DELETE=destructive) and notes confirmation requirements and the return envelope. The mention of 'Same confirmation rules as {svc}_call_method' is useful context but weakened by the unresolved placeholder.

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 front-loads the core purpose and safety model, then presents a tight bulleted argument list and a one-line return contract. Every sentence carries load-bearing information, and there is no filler.

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 endpoint executor, the description covers purpose, safety, all parameter roles, and the response shape. It could be more complete by resolving the confirmation-rule placeholder and by explicitly steering catalogued endpoints to ym_call_method, but overall the agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining method, path, host, query, body, and the two confirmation flags. The confirmation parameters are only labeled as 'confirmations,' without differentiating when each should be set, which is a meaningful gap for safe invocation.

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 states a specific action ('Execute ANY endpoint') and clearly identifies the resource scope: endpoints beyond the catalog, with 'full API coverage.' It distinguishes itself from catalog-scoped siblings such as ym_call_method by emphasizing that it can reach uncatalogued endpoints.

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 gives clear context: use this tool for any endpoint, even ones not in the catalog, which implies it is the raw fallback for uncovered API operations. It does not explicitly say 'for catalogued endpoints use ym_call_method instead,' but the catalog contrast provides adequate selection context.

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