rew_call_api

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and openWorld=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: body accepts objects, arrays, and JSON scalars, wait needs a progress_path, and a timeout does not imply cancellation. Those last two are non-obvious semantics an agent would otherwise guess wrong on. It omits return shape and any permission or side-effect details beyond "destructive".

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 with the verb and resource front-loaded; each clause carries information and none is filler. Slightly clipped to the point of underspecification, but no wasted wording.

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?

Covers the two biggest hazards (destructive execution, timeout ambiguity) for a generic gateway, but with an entirely undocumented 7-parameter schema and no output schema, an agent still lacks guidance on sourcing operation_id and structuring query/path_params.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the burden, and it only covers body, wait, and implicitly progress_path. It says nothing about operation_id (where it comes from), query, path_params, or the wait_timeout bounds and units.

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 ("Execute") and resource ("any discovered REW operation") with the qualifier that arguments are validated. The word "discovered" signals this is the execution half of a discover-then-call workflow, which separates it from rew_describe_api and rew_search_api without naming them.

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?

Implies operation_id must come from prior discovery and states a concrete precondition for waiting ("requires a documented progress endpoint"), but never explicitly says when to prefer this over siblings such as rew_request, rew_command, or rew_batch, nor when not to use it.

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