lexicon_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the write requirement for non-GET methods, omitting details about response format, error handling, authentication, rate limits, or the effects of operations (e.g., side effects of POST/DELETE). This is insufficient for a tool that can modify data.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: the first states the primary purpose, and the second adds an important constraint. No extraneous information, well front-loaded.

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 (generic endpoint, multiple methods, body parameter) and no output schema, the description should cover response structure, error behavior, and prerequisites beyond the write flag. It does not address these, leaving significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 low (33%). The description adds value for the 'path' parameter by specifying it must start with '/v1/', but provides no additional meaning for 'method' (though its enum is in schema) or 'body' (only described as object in schema). It compensates slightly for the coverage gap but not fully.

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 explicitly states 'Call any Lexicon /v1 endpoint (GET, PATCH, POST, DELETE).' This clearly defines the action (call) and resource (any /v1 endpoint), distinguishing it from sibling tools that target specific endpoints.

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 notes the non-GET methods require the environment variable LEXICON_MCP_ALLOW_WRITES=1, providing a key condition for use. However, it does not clarify when to prefer this generic tool over specific sibling tools like lexicon_get_track, nor does it exclude alternatives. This leaves ambiguity about context-specific usage.

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