Advanced MyFatoorah API request

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses substantial behavioral constraints: only safe relative /v2/ or /v3/ paths are accepted, only GET/POST/PUT methods, absolute URLs are blocked to prevent credential exfiltration, and POST/PUT require confirm=true. These align with (and add detail to) the destructiveHint=true annotation; no contradiction.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then method/path constraints, then the safety rationale, then the mutation gate. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations plus description cover the safety profile well. The remaining gaps are body format and idempotencyKey usage guidance, which an agent needs for correct POST/PUT invocations, but the core contract is otherwise fully specified.

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 only 40%, so the description carries part of the burden. It adds real value for path (relative-only, absolute URLs blocked) and reinforces the confirm gate, but it leaves body format and idempotencyKey semantics completely unexplained — meaningful gaps for a generic request tool. The POST/PUT confirm requirement merely restates the schema's confirm description.

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 purpose — an escape hatch for documented MyFatoorah v2/v3 endpoints — and explicitly scopes it to endpoints 'not covered by another tool,' which differentiates it from the six sibling tools that cover specific payment/invoice/refund operations. The resource (MyFatoorah API endpoints) and scope (only uncovered endpoints) are unambiguous.

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 a clear selection criterion: use this tool only when a documented endpoint is not covered by another tool. This implies sibling tools should be preferred for their respective operations, though it does not name them explicitly or give a when-not-to-use example.

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