vro_api_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: full write/delete capability (destructive methods named), and the non-obvious output transformation that inventory lists are flattened into 'items' unless raw=true. Auth requirements, rate limits, and error behavior are not mentioned, so it is not complete, but the response-shaping disclosure is real value beyond the schema.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler; the endpoint/method scope and identification mechanism are front-loaded, and the output-shaping caveat follows immediately. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 12-parameter generic passthrough with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it reaches, how to target it, and how the body is shaped. It stops short of the surrounding context an agent would want (auth prerequisites, error/validation behavior, relationship to the dedicated workflow/action tools), leaving a modest gap given the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 50%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the central parameters: it explains operationId (preferred, sourced from vro_api_search), method+path relative to /vco/api, and the raw flag's effect on flattening. Several parameters (maxChars, includeHeaders, contentType, headers, body) remain undocumented in both schema and description, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 verb and resource ('Call any Orchestrator REST endpoint'), enumerates the full method scope (GET/POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE), and explicitly routes discovery to the sibling vro_api_search for operationId. An agent can distinguish this generic passthrough from the dedicated siblings without opening the 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?

It gives a clear preference rule for identifying the endpoint (operationId preferred, sourced from vro_api_search, else method+path), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer the dedicated siblings (vro_run_workflow, vro_get_workflow, vro_find_workflows, etc.) over this generic caller, nor when this tool is the wrong choice. Usage is implied rather than bounded.

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