corymbus_raw_request

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds crucial context: 'Peut écrire selon method/path' (may write depending on method/path), which warns of mutation risk. This exceeds the annotation information, though it doesn't detail other behaviors like auth or error handling.

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 is very concise: two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and warning, no fluff. The emoji warning effectively calls attention to the write risk.

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 request tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, parameter hints, and side-effect risk. It doesn't explain return values, but that's expected for a raw API wrapper. Overall, it's complete for practical use.

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 descriptions cover all parameters with decent detail (method enum, path format, query example). The description adds that body/query are optional and reinforces method and path constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the description adds marginal but useful guidance.

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 clearly states it is a 'raw call to the Corymbus API for endpoints not covered by a dedicated tool,' which identifies the specific verb ('call') and resource (Corymbus API). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it covers endpoints without a dedicated tool.

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 explicitly says when to use it: for endpoints not covered by a dedicated tool. This implies that dedicated sibling tools should be preferred when available. It also warns that it can write, guiding careful usage.

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