Raw Taiga API Request

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

The description labels the tool as a 'raw request' escape hatch, which implies arbitrary HTTP methods and side effects, but it does not explicitly warn about potential destructive outcomes (e.g., DELETE permanently removing data) or authentication/rate-limit nuances. With only openWorldHint=true annotation, the description adds some context but leaves room for the agent to infer safety behavior.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the critical 'escape hatch' concept. The first sentence uses a colon to immediately define the tool's purpose, and the second sentence provides a crisp usage rule. Every word earns its place, with no redundant elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's nature as a raw HTTP request wrapper, the description sufficiently covers its purpose, scope, and relationship to dedicated tools. It does not explain response formats or error handling, but for an escape-hatch tool, the raw response is inherently unpredictable and the schema already addresses common pitfalls (OCC version, body serialization). The description plus schema together provide adequate context for an agent to select and invoke this tool.

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?

The tool-level description does not describe parameters; however, the input schema provides rich descriptions for method, path, and body, including OCC version requirements and JSON formatting pitfalls. With 75% schema coverage, the schema carries most of the parameter semantics, so the description adds no additional value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with 'Escape hatch: make a raw request to any /api/v1/ endpoint on the configured Taiga instance', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating it covers functionality not provided by dedicated tools, and points to examples like importers, webhooks, and application tokens.

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 clearly states when to use this tool ('for functionality not covered by a dedicated tool') and when not to ('Prefer a dedicated tool when one exists'). It also gives example domains (importers, webhooks, application tokens) that illustrate the intended use cases, making the alternative selection explicit.

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