alterios_write_safety_preflight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool 'classifies' and 'returns gates', implying it is a safe, non-destructive operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Classify a proposed mutating REST call') and the outcome ('return the gates'). Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, an output schema, and a specialized preflight role), the description is minimal. While the output schema likely documents return values, the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter guidance or provide context on how 'gates' are defined or used.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters. While the purpose suggests 'method' and 'path' are key, parameters like 'allow_destructive', 'body', and 'profile' remain unexplained, placing a high burden on the agent to infer semantics from names alone.

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 uses a specific verb 'Classify' and resource 'mutating REST call', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that actually execute write operations. The outcome 'return the gates required before execution' further clarifies its role as a preflight gate analysis, not a write operation itself.

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 before executing a mutating call, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., alterios_discover_readonly or other write tools). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving room for confusion about when this tool is appropriate.

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