Произвольный запрос к кабинету

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 discloses that the tool handles the session, antiforgery token, and DDoS-Guard protection, and warns that non-GET methods modify account data. This is valuable safety context beyond the schema. It does not describe return format or error behavior, but for a raw request tool these are generally self-evident.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the critical safety warning. Every sentence adds value, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 raw request tool, the description covers the essential behavioral constraints: session handling, DDoS protection, path prefix, and mutation warning. It does not explicitly mention the response format, but that is implied by 'любой запрос' and is typical for raw tools. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description adds little beyond the schema. The only additional parameter semantics is the constraint that the path must start with /api/, which is a useful rule but not extensive. The warning about mutation is more behavioral than parameter-specific. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it performs any request to the personal cabinet API, specifies it uses the current session, antiforgery token, and DDoS-Guard protection, and positions itself as the raw fallback for typed tools. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the many typed siblings by being the untyped, arbitrary-request tool. The requirement that the path start with /api/ further defines its scope.

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 explicitly says it is for things not covered by typed tools, giving clear context on when to use it. It does not name specific alternative tools, but the general reference to 'типизированными инструментами' is sufficient given the large sibling list. It also warns about mutating methods, which is relevant guidance for safe usage.

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