Raw API request

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds useful behavioral details beyond the flags: paths are relative to `/api/`, trailing slashes are added automatically, and responses are raw rather than name-resolved. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, path semantics, schema discovery, and alternative-preference guidance. It is front-loaded with the most important information and has no filler.

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-API escape hatch with no output schema, the description is appropriately complete: it teaches the agent how to discover endpoint schemas, how to build paths, and when to avoid the tool. It correctly delegates exhaustive endpoint enumeration to the linked API 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 high, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that `path` is relative to `/api/`, giving concrete examples, and noting trailing-slash normalization. It also clarifies that `body` is for POST/PATCH/PUT implicitly via the raw-API context.

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+resource: an escape hatch for any paperless-ngx REST endpoint not covered by the purpose-built siblings, with concrete examples such as workflows, share links, mail rules, and trash. It clearly distinguishes itself from the other paperless tools by scope.

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?

Gives explicit routing guidance: prefer the purpose-built tools when one fits; use this tool for endpoints they do not cover. It also provides path-relative-to-`/api/` instructions and a link to the full API schema, so the agent knows exactly how to construct a call.

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