alterios_rest_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It vaguely describes mutating requests and write gates but fails to explain key behaviors: what dry_run does, what 'allow_destructive' means, what happens on execution, or the nature of the response. Given the tool's write nature, much more context is needed.

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 only two sentences and contains no obvious fluff. However, for a tool with 9 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is severe under-specification. Concision is valuable, but not when it omits essential 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?

Given the complexity (9 params, required fields, nested objects, output schema) and the complete lack of parameter descriptions, the brief description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the role of dry_run, plan_id, or how the write gates work. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged.

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. It provides no explanation of any of the 9 parameters (body, path, method, params, dry_run, plan_id, profile, project_id, allow_destructive). Agents have zero semantic guidance beyond the parameter names.

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 plans or runs mutating REST requests, which distinguishes it from read tools like alterios_rest_get. However, it does not differentiate among the many sibling write tools (e.g., alterios_fast_live_write, alterios_call_write_service), leaving ambiguity about when to use this generic REST write tool.

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 mentions 'Execution requires explicit write gates,' providing a precondition. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative write tools, nor does it specify when not to use it or what factors might favor a sibling.

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