Call any Open API endpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: non-GET calls are refused in read-only mode, writes return a dry-run preview unless confirm:true, and {omadacId}/{siteId} are auto-injected. It omits pagination behavior, error semantics, and what the response envelope looks like, which matters for a generic dispatcher.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, and the invocation modes are front-loaded ahead of the safety constraints. Every clause adds information an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 generic API dispatcher with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers invocation, path templating, and the write-safety model. It is nearly sufficient, with return shape and pagination left implicit.

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 57% and the description fills the most important gaps: it explains the operationId alternative, that the /openapi/v1/{omadacId} prefix is applied automatically, and the exact approval semantics of confirm. It says nothing about body or query shape, which remain undocumented in both places.

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 resource — 'Invoke any controller Open API endpoint' — and implicitly separates itself from omada_ui_call by scoping to the Open API surface. It also names omada_search_api as the source of operationId, so an agent can route between the search/describe/call trio without opening a 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?

Gives two concrete entry paths ('operationId from omada_search_api' or 'method+path') and states the read-only and confirm-before-write conditions, plus the requirement to show the dry-run preview and get an explicit yes. It stops short of saying when to prefer the purpose-built siblings (omada_clients, omada_sites) over this generic escape hatch.

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