Call any sevDesk API operation

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

Discloses far more than the annotations: read-only refusal under SEVDESK_READ_ONLY, describe-only behavior under dry-run, the preventSendBy=true default for *GetPdf reads, the non-obvious fact that some GETs mutate, and that DELETE is irreversible. This is exactly the context annotations alone (destructiveHint, openWorldHint) cannot convey.

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-loads the core dispatch mechanic, then the safety/dry-run rules, then the warning — a sensible ordering. Every sentence carries distinct information, though the preventSendBy and GET-that-writes sentences are packed tightly enough to need a second read.

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 generic open-world dispatcher with an output schema absent, the description covers the request-construction and safety model thoroughly. It does not indicate what a response looks like or how errors surface from arbitrary operations, which is the remaining gap given there is no output schema.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics the schema lacks: param-name-to-path substitution, leftover params becoming query params, and bracket syntax for nested objects. The only gap is that `body` handling is left implicit for a nested-object tool.

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 and mechanic ("Execute any operation from the catalogue" plus how params map to path/query), so an agent can tell this is the generic dispatcher rather than a task-specific sibling like sevdesk_create_invoice. It never names the catalogue source (sevdesk_list_operations) or the alternative inspector (sevdesk_describe_operation) in the prose, relying on the schema for that routing.

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?

Explains operative conditions (read-only server refuses mutations, dry-run only describes) which is genuinely useful selection context, but gives no when-to-use-this-vs-dedicated siblings guidance. An agent has to infer that dedicated tools should be preferred and that operationId must be discovered first.

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