Raw Omada API request

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the access token is attached automatically, {omadacId}/{mspId} are substituted server-side, and {siteId} falls back to the default site — all facts an agent cannot derive from the schema. It does not mention rate limits, error/response shape, or validation bypass, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with purpose stated first and the placeholder-substitution mechanics second. The inline example path is the only elaboration and it earns its place by anchoring the relative-path convention.

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 unconstrained, destructive raw-HTTP escape hatch with no output schema and a nested `body`/`query` object, the definition covers routing and URL construction but says nothing about what comes back or how failures surface. An agent still has to guess whether responses are raw JSON, whether HTTP errors are raised as tool errors, and whether the raw call skips any spec-level validation.

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 75%, so the schema already documents method, path, body, and query. The description adds genuine meaning for `path` — that it is relative to the base URL and that placeholder tokens are auto-substituted — which the schema's terse "Starts with /" does not convey. The remaining parameters get no additional treatment, so it is a modest but real gain over the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("send a raw HTTP request to the controller") and immediately scopes it as the fallback for "anything not covered by the spec," which distinguishes it from the spec-driven siblings like omada_call_operation and omada_get_schema. An agent can tell what this tool is and is not for without opening the schema.

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?

"For anything not covered by the spec" gives a clear selection rule and implicitly positions this as a last resort behind the operation/schema tools. It stops short of naming omada_call_operation as the preferred alternative or explicitly stating when-not-to-use, so the routing is inferred rather than spelled out.

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