rest_write

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It adequately discloses the write nature and method effects (PUT=tambah, PATCH=ubah by id, DELETE=hapus by id, POST=command) but lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or system impact beyond the caution note.

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?

Concise and well-structured: bold header, bullet-style arg list with examples, and a cautionary note. Every sentence is informative with no wasted words.

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?

No output schema, so missing return value information. Lacks details on error responses and authentication beyond the env variable. For a generic write tool, it covers usage but not outcomes, which is a moderate gap.

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 0%, yet the description fully explains each parameter: method with allowed values and their meanings, path format with examples, and body as optional JSON. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 is for generic REST write operations (PUT/PATCH/DELETE/POST) and distinguishes itself from specific sibling tools by indicating it's for advanced operations without dedicated tools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'rest_get' or other read tools.

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 states the prerequisite (MIKROCLAW_ALLOW_WRITE=true) and provides clear guidance: use only when no dedicated tool exists ('operasi lanjutan yang belum punya tool khusus') and advises caution ('Gunakan hati-hati'). This effectively tells agents when to use and when not to.

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