Call any Salesforce REST endpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does transparently state that any method can be used, including potentially destructive ones, and clarifies path resolution rules. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or explicit warnings about mutating/destructive operations beyond the unadorned 'any method' phrase.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, follows with path-format examples that resolve ambiguity, and ends with a directive on when to use it. Every sentence earns its place.

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 REST explorer with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose, path syntax, method flexibility, and fallback role. It does not detail the response format, error semantics, or rate limits, but these are less critical for a raw endpoint caller and the provided information is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic detail about the most ambiguous parameter, 'path', by explaining that it can be either relative to /services/data/vXX or an absolute /services/data/... path, and provides concrete examples. This goes beyond the schema's own description.

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 ('Call'), a well-defined resource ('any path under /services/data/vXX'), and any HTTP method, with examples of both relative and absolute paths. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as the generic fallback for endpoints not covered by other tools, making it easy for an agent to recognize when this tool is the right choice.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use this for endpoints not covered by the other tools.' This directly tells an agent when to select this tool over siblings, and implicitly when not to use it, without requiring the agent to inspect other tool schemas.

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