prophetkey_make_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the proxy injects the real API key and that the agent never sees it. However, it does not mention potential side effects of making requests (e.g., DELETE may mutate external resources), error handling, rate limits, or the response format. The disclosure is helpful 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a key security detail. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary explanation. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It explains the proxy's key-handling behavior but omits response shape, error behavior, and how the safe_key relates to the sibling key-management tools. The schema covers parameters, and the purpose is clear, but the complete operational picture is not fully described.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining why safe_key exists: the proxy automatically injects the real key and keeps it hidden from the agent. This clarifies the role of safe_key, though endpoint, method, and body semantics remain schema-defined without additional description.

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's function: 'Make an API request through the ProphetKey proxy.' This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like prophetkey_list_keys and prophetkey_proxy_status, which are inspection/status operations rather than request execution.

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 implies usage: it is the tool to make actual API calls through the proxy. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over the sibling tools, nor does it mention prerequisites such as obtaining a safe_key from prophetkey_list_keys. The context is clear but the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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