CloudKit: Raw Request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Only GET is available while writes are disabled,' adding the mechanism and current disabled-writes context. It also discloses that the API is undocumented, which sets expectations for raw/unpredictable responses. It does not detail error or response shapes, but the read-only annotation lowers that burden.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the usage rule is compact. The second sentence is slightly wordy in explaining why the escape hatch exists, but it earns its place by justifying the tool's existence among specific siblings. No meaningful 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 arbitrary raw-request tool, the description and schema together give what an agent needs to invoke it: an absolute path, GET-only availability, and the preference for specific tools. No fixed output schema is expected for raw requests, so omitting return details is acceptable. The only minor gap is lack of explicit guidance about response/error formats.

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 100%, so the schema already documents path, body, method, and confirm. The description adds the important constraint that only GET is currently available, which clarifies method semantics, but it does not provide additional parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema already contains.

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 opens with 'Escape hatch: issue an arbitrary CloudKit management API request,' which states a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying the other cloudkit_* tools cover the documented routes and that this exists for undocumented or differently-shaped 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?

It gives a clear preference rule: 'Prefer a specific tool when one fits,' which tells an agent when NOT to use this tool. It also states the current constraint: 'Only GET is available while writes are disabled,' so the agent knows the only supported method before invoking.

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