Call any Outline API method

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, yet the description explicitly advertises destructive, non-idempotent operations such as documents.delete, documents.create, documents.update, collections.delete, and documents.archive. This is a direct contradiction of the stated safety profile. Per the rules this is an annotation contradiction and scores 1, despite the otherwise useful disclosure of URL, return payload, and pagination.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the URL, then args and returns. The long enumeration of ~30 method names is bulky, but for an open-ended dispatcher it earns its place by giving the agent the exact method identifiers to pass, so the length is defensible rather than padding.

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 open-world proxy with a free-form params object, the description covers the transport, the required method argument, the params contract, and the return shape including pagination, so an agent can call it correctly. The one missing piece is any warning about the privileges/irreversibility of the destructive methods it lists, which matters a great deal here.

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 100% (method and params are both documented in-schema), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that method is a dotted name like 'documents.info' and that params is a 'method-specific payload', which is helpful context but adds no syntax or structure beyond the schema.

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 ('Call any Outline RPC method directly') and pins the exact wire format (POST https://app.getoutline.com/api/:method), so the agent knows precisely what this does. It also differentiates itself from siblings by scoping to 'endpoints without a dedicated tool', which cleanly separates it from outline_get_document, outline_list_documents, etc.

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?

Explicitly states the selection condition: use this for endpoints that lack a dedicated tool, which implicitly routes the agent to the sibling tools for everything else. The enumerated common methods help an agent confirm coverage, though it never names a concrete sibling as the preferred alternative for the overlapping cases (create/update/delete document), leaving some inference.

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