wealthbox.request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the tool 'supports method, path, body, and query,' but does not disclose that it can perform arbitrary, potentially destructive operations (e.g., DELETE or PATCH) or explain authentication, rate limits, or error behavior. The agent is left unaware of the risks of using this raw API tool.

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 one short sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to parse. However, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification, though conciseness is technically about efficient wording, not completeness.

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 API request tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only partial schema descriptions, this description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how responses are structured, how to handle errors, or what conventions to follow for the path/body/query. The agent would be largely guessing when invoking this tool.

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?

The description merely lists parameter names (method, path, body, query) without adding any semantic meaning. The schema already provides some details (e.g., path must start with /v1, method enum), but the description does not explain how to construct paths or format the body/query. With schema description coverage at only 25%, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 identifies the tool as a generic Wealthbox API request tool, with a specific verb ('request') and resource ('Wealthbox API'). It lists the supported parameter types (method, path, body, query), which helps distinguish it from the many specific sibling tools for contacts, tasks, events, etc. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a raw fallback for endpoints without dedicated 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many specific sibling tools. The description does not mention preferring dedicated endpoints (e.g., wealthbox.contacts.create) or using this generic tool only when no specific tool exists. Given the wide array of siblings, the lack of explicit usage context is a significant gap.

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