Medusa Admin API request

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds unusually valuable context beyond them: which method performs which mutation, that api-keys/users/invites writes are blocked, that changes should be confirmed with the user, and that amounts use major units. These are non-obvious constraints an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 the tool's role, then alternative routing, then method/field/unit conventions, then the safety block. Five dense sentences, each carrying a distinct operational fact with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description covers routing, mutation semantics, blocked resources, and value conventions well. The one gap is response behavior (error shape, pagination, partial failures), which matters for a catch-all endpoint caller but is not addressed.

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?

With 75% schema description coverage the schema already documents path, body, and query. The description adds semantics the schema does not: the '+field' / '*relation' modifiers for the fields query key and the major-unit convention for amounts. It does not document the method enum's practical implications further, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 and resource ('Calls any Medusa v2 Admin API endpoint directly') and immediately bounds the scope with concrete example paths. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the ~40 sibling tools by positioning itself as the fallback for uncovered endpoints.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('anything the other tools do not cover') and when-not ('Prefer the dedicated tools when one fits'), plus a concrete confirmation rule for destructive calls. An agent has no ambiguity about routing between this and domain-specific siblings.

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