openapi_operation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does add useful context: it checks API capabilities first and applies the same raw API permission rules as rest_request for writes. It does not describe potential side effects, response behavior, or failure modes of a raw REST execution.

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 concise sentences front-load the core action and then add the important permission/capability context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 REST operation with six parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too thin. It provides a capability-checking detail but omits parameter semantics, return shape, and error/edge-case behavior, leaving an agent under-equipped to call it safely and effectively.

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 0% and the description only mentions method and path. The body, query, profile, and refresh parameters are left undocumented, and the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 action ('Execute a REST operation'), a resource ('by method/path'), and a distinguishing trait: a 'curated escape hatch' that shares rest_request's raw permission rules. This makes its purpose and relationship to the rest_request sibling clear.

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 identifies the tool as an escape hatch, which implies use when no dedicated tool covers an operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose openapi_operation over rest_request or other siblings, nor give exclusions.

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