Manager Api Request

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate mutability; it adds the meaningful detail that this bypasses per-resource tick boxes and requires the separate 'Raw write' permission. It also lists allowed methods, clarifying the scope of the open-world 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 terse sentences, each earning its place: scope, permission caveat, and routing advice. The most decision-relevant detail ('escape hatch') is front-loaded.

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 an escape hatch with 2 required params and an output schema, the description covers what the tool is, when to avoid it, and what permission it needs. It's slightly thin on body/business parameter semantics, but those are optional and the schema carries type info.

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%, so the description carries the burden, but it only covers method and path indirectly ('any method… any Manager API path'). The optional body and business parameters are left entirely unspecified, which is a gap for an escape-hatch tool.

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' and a concrete verb phrase: 'send any method (POST/PUT/DELETE) to any Manager API path.' It clearly scopes the tool as generic raw API access and distinguishes it from managed siblings by naming the preferred alternatives.

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 says to prefer manager_create / manager_update, and explains the special permission requirement (separate 'Raw write' box) that gates use. It doesn't enumerate every scenario, but gives enough directional guidance to route an agent toward the managed tools when possible.

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