document_add_request_body

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Add an empty request body,' which implies a mutation but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or idempotency. This is inadequate for a modification tool.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be improved by adding more contextual details without becoming verbose, balancing conciseness with completeness.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the result of the operation, whether it can be undone, or any constraints like requiring an existing operation. The description is incomplete for a tool performing a meaningful modification.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a basic description. However, the tool's description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as how the parameters are used or any constraints. The baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Add'), the object ('empty request body'), and the context ('to an operation, OpenAPI 3.x only'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that add other elements like callbacks, examples, or parameters.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like document_add_request_body_definition or when not to use it. The 'OpenAPI 3.x only' constraint is helpful but insufficient for a complete usage guideline.

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