htb_api_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states it's a write operation and defaults to API v4, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., submitting flags) or authentication requirements. Basic info is present but incomplete.

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 concise with three sentences and an example. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently conveys versioning and parameter usage without unnecessary text.

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 generic POST tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers core usage, version targeting, and an example. It lacks details on response format, authentication, or error handling, but these are not critical for a straightforward tool.

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%, so the description must add value. It explains the path parameter's version prefix convention and provides an example for body_json, giving meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 calls a write HTB API path for endpoint discovery or ad-hoc mutations, distinguishing it from the sibling htb_api_get for read operations. The example reinforces the purpose.

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 specifies usage for 'endpoint discovery or ad-hoc mutations,' providing clear context. It implicitly distinguishes from htb_api_get but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives.

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