sylve_api_call

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

The description adds one useful behavioral detail (None query params are filtered out), which the schema does not state. However it explicitly advertises DELETE support while annotations declare destructiveHint=false — an agent routing a delete through this tool would not be warned of destruction by the annotations. It also omits that `wait` (default true) makes the call block/poll, which materially changes call 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the two actionable hints. No filler; a small amount of space is arguably underused for a 12-parameter escape hatch, but nothing present is wasteful.

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?

This is a 12-parameter, nested-object, no-output-schema passthrough, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return shape and blocking semantics — and it does neither. An agent cannot tell from the text whether a call returns immediately with a task/event handle, whether `wait` blocks until completion, or how download_path/upload_file change the call.

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?

With 58% schema coverage, the description fills some gaps: it clarifies body construction via sylve_api_schema and explains query_params filtering behavior, and the method list mirrors the enum. But the most consequential parameters — wait, wait_timeout, event_kind, upload_file, download_path — are left entirely to brief schema text, and the interaction between wait and wait_timeout is never explained.

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 verb (execute) and resource (any documented Sylve API operation) and enumerates the supported HTTP methods, so an agent immediately knows this is a raw API passthrough rather than a domain tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the ~30 dedicated siblings (sylve_vm_action, sylve_backup, etc.), so the agent must infer that this is the fallback for undocumented operations.

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?

"Combine with sylve_api_schema to build accurate bodies" gives a concrete workflow hint, which is genuine usage guidance. But there is no statement of when to prefer this over the many purpose-built sibling tools, and no warning that this bypasses those higher-level wrappers — usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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