Call any Forbiz route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully adds that capabilities are enforced server-side, which tells the agent it cannot exceed its permissions. It does not disclose error/response behavior, whether POST bodies are validated, or any reversibility concerns for arbitrary mutations, so it adds only moderate context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's identity, followed by the resource list, path-format example and the server-side enforcement note. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded, though the parenthetical URL could be folded more tightly into the first sentence.

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 untyped HTTP passthrough with nested body/query objects and no output schema, the description is adequate: it names the spec URL, the route families and the path convention. It still leaves the agent without guidance on request shaping or expected responses, which matters more for an open-world escape hatch than for a narrow 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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by explaining that 'path' is relative to the API base and starting with '/', with concrete examples. It says nothing about how 'body' versus 'query' are used, nor when to choose GET versus POST beyond what the enum already shows, leaving half the burden unmet.

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 clear verb+resource: a generic escape hatch that calls any Forbiz Agent API route, and it enumerates the route domains (projects, decisions, delegations, outreach, policies, export, purchases) so the agent knows the surface area. The phrase 'any OTHER route' implicitly distinguishes it from the purpose-built siblings, but it never names one, leaving differentiation slightly inferential.

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?

'Escape hatch for any other route' clearly signals this is the fallback when no dedicated tool exists, and the pointer to the OpenAPI spec plus concrete path examples ('/projects', '/decisions/recommendation') tell the agent how to pick a route. There is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer, so it stops short of a 5.

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