http_put

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the implementation detail ('using curl') and omits that PUT is a mutating, idempotent write operation, whether auth is required, or what side effects occur on the remote resource.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than true economy of information.

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 tool with 8 parameters including a nested auth configuration, timeout, and insecure-SSL flag, and with no annotations to carry the safety profile, one sentence is inadequate. The absence of an output schema excuses explaining return values, but the mutating nature and auth expectations are left entirely implicit.

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 all 8 parameters (including the nested auth object) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (PUT) and resource (HTTP request), and the method semantics distinguish it from siblings like http_get and http_post by name alone. However, the description itself adds nothing to differentiate real alternatives such as http_patch or http_upload, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No statement of when to use PUT versus siblings such as http_post, http_patch, or curl_custom. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions; the only signal is the HTTP verb in the name.

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