Send raw API request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals that the Authorization header with a superuser token is attached automatically, that the path must start with '/api/', and that a parsed JSON response is returned. These are important behavioral facts beyond the schema, though it does not explicitly warn about the destructive potential of arbitrary DELETE/POST requests.

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 sentences, with the purpose front-loaded first, then usage guidance, then key behavioral constraints. Each sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 generic raw-request tool, the description covers selection criteria, authentication behavior, path constraints, and response format. Combined with the fully documented input schema, the agent has sufficient information to select and invoke the tool correctly without an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already described structurally. The description adds meaningful context for `path` by specifying that it is relative to the server root and must start with '/api/', and it clarifies the return format, going beyond the schema's property 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 'send an arbitrary authenticated HTTP request to any PocketBase API endpoint' with a specific verb and resource. It also brands itself as an 'escape hatch' for endpoints not covered by a dedicated tool, clearly distinguishing it from all the resource-specific sibling tools.

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 explicitly lists the use cases: endpoints not covered by a dedicated tool, custom routes added via hooks, and new API features. This gives the agent a clear selection rule and implicitly tells it to prefer a sibling tool whenever one exists.

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