idor_fuzz

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently walks through the workflow: loading the request, identifying ID-like parameters, generating or using candidate IDs, sending mutated requests, and diffing responses. It does not explicitly warn about live network side effects, but 'sends mutated requests' conveys the active nature.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a compact but informative workflow breakdown. Every phrase contributes meaning without repetition or 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 a fuzzer with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core input-to-output pipeline well: source request, mutation strategy, candidate generation, execution, and detection goal. It does not address edge cases like rate limits or authentication, but the schema and output schema cover parameter details.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful meaning by explaining that ID-like parameters include numeric IDs and UUIDs, that candidate IDs can be auto-generated or explicitly supplied, and that responses are diffed. This complements the schema descriptions and helps the agent decide how to populate candidate_ids and target_id.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb ('Fuzz') and resource ('a logged HTTP request'), and the description explains the mechanism: swapping ID parameters and diffing responses to detect IDOR/BOLA. It clearly distinguishes itself from generic replay/search tools and the specialized idor_fuzz_url/idor_fuzz_roles siblings.

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 provides clear context: the tool operates on a request already logged in memory, which is an important prerequisite. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like idor_fuzz_url or idor_fuzz_roles, but the usage intent is unambiguous.

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