Raw Action1 API request (escape hatch)

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

Disclosures beyond annotations: describes the passthrough nature, mentions bypassing schemas, and details the destructive guard mechanism. No contradiction with annotations (destructiveHint=true is correctly reflected).

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences each serve a distinct purpose: defining the tool, setting usage boundaries, and explaining safety constraints. No wasted words.

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 complexity as an escape hatch with many parameters and safety guards, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, usage conditions, and behavioral constraints without overloading.

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 covers 100% of parameters. Description adds value by explaining default behavior (dry_run default true) and required confirmation (confirm: 'YES') for destructive verbs, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 defines the tool as a 'Generic passthrough to any Action1 API path' and explicitly states it bypasses per-tool schemas, positioning it as an escape hatch. It distinguishes from siblings by directing usage only when no dedicated tool exists.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use only when no dedicated tool exists. Also specifies safe vs. destructive operations, requiring a destructive guard with confirm and dry_run for mutation methods.

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