websex_bfla_probe

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the internal mechanism well (paired low/privileged replay, success-differential trigger), but never warns that it issues live POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE requests that may mutate target state, nor does it mention request volume or max_requests-capped throttling.

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?

A single dense sentence with the technique front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though the semicolon-clause packs several concepts together and could be split for scanability.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a 7-parameter, state-changing, annotation-free probe the one-sentence description is materially under-specified: no credential prerequisites, no destructive-action caveat, no indication of scope or volume, and no parameter guidance.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It only obliquely maps 'identity' to the two header objects and names the privileged verbs; engagement_id, url, body, methods, and max_requests are entirely unexplained.

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?

Names the specific vulnerability class (function-level authorization) and states the exact mechanism – privileged verbs replayed under two identities – with the detection trigger. It is distinguishable from siblings like websex_idor_probe and websex_access_bypass_probe, though it never uses an explicit 'this tool probes X' verb.

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 firing condition implies when results matter, but there is no statement of when to choose this over websex_access_bypass_probe or websex_idor_probe, and no prerequisites (e.g. requires a known endpoint and two sets of credentials). Usage is inferable only from the technique name.

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