forcepoint_api_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses Vault-backed credential usage and the authorizationKey requirement, but does not explain potential side effects (e.g., data modification/deletion), error behavior, response format, or endpoint restrictions. Some context is added, but significant behavioral traits remain undisclosed.

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 purpose, and every sentence earns its place. There is no fluff or repetition, making it appropriately concise for the content it delivers.

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?

The tool is complex (7 params, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), yet the description is minimal. It lacks any guidance on response handling, error behavior, request construction, or examples, and does not compensate for the lack of annotations or schema descriptions. Only the fallback positioning and auth caveat are covered.

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 compensate for the 7 parameters. It only explains 'authorizationKey' (mutating calls require it) and implicitly 'userId' via 'selected user's Vault-backed credential.' Method, path, body, query, and headers have no added meaning beyond raw types. This is insufficient for a generic API request tool.

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 executes a generic Forcepoint API request using Vault-backed credentials, and contrasts it with dedicated tools by saying 'Use only when no dedicated tool fits.' This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools, showing a specific verb, resource, and scope.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use only when no dedicated tool fits,' which tells the agent this is the fallback option, not the first choice. It also provides a conditional usage requirement for mutating calls when admin auth is enabled, adding practical guidance.

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