Raw Clio API request (escape hatch)

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows mutations are possible. The description adds useful behavioral context about how POST/PATCH bodies are handled (data vs body wrapping). It does not disclose other behaviors like rate limits or error handling, but given the annotations, the description provides reasonable transparency.

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?

The description is concise, consisting of two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes essential usage details efficiently.

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 tool's complexity as an escape hatch with no output schema, the description provides adequate context: path format, body handling, and usage examples. It could mention response format or authentication but is sufficient for an advanced agent.

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 (83%), but the description adds critical meaning: it explains that 'data' will be wrapped in { data: ... } while 'body' is sent verbatim, and that path is relative to the API root with examples. This goes beyond the schema's 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 clearly states the tool issues arbitrary requests against the Clio v4 API, specifying it's for endpoints not yet wrapped. It distinguishes from dedicated sibling tools by explicitly advising to prefer them.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Prefer the dedicated tools — this exists for endpoints not yet wrapped' and lists examples of unwrapped endpoints (custom_fields, trust_requests, webhooks, etc.), providing strong guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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