Call any wflow API endpoint (generic)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses path templating, organization injection, query filter syntax, JSON body handling, and the WFLOW_READONLY write-blocking behavior. However, it does not mention response format, error handling, or authentication, which would have made it fully transparent.

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 well-structured with a lead sentence and four focused bullets, each conveying a distinct operational rule. It is slightly verbose for a simple tool, but the complexity of the generic caller justifies the length; there is minimal 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?

The description thoroughly covers request construction but omits any mention of return values, error handling, or pagination. Since there is no output schema, an agent may be left uncertain about what the tool actually returns when called, leaving a notable gap for a generic API caller.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: explains how {organization} placeholders are resolved, provides a wflow filter syntax example for 'query', and clarifies that 'body' is sent as JSON for PUT/POST/PATCH. This is more than the schema alone provides.

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 clearly states the tool is a low-level escape hatch for calling ANY wflow public API endpoint, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the typed siblings by instructing to use it when no typed tool fits, and references wflow_api_catalog for discovery.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when no typed tool fits' and directs the agent to browse the surface with wflow_api_catalog first. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and contrasts with the many specific sibling tools.

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