fluig_rest_post

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

The description mentions authentication and request format but does not cover response details, error handling, or what happens on invalid paths. Given no annotations, it carries the full burden but leaves gaps.

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 core purpose, and every word adds value.

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?

For an escape hatch tool with no output schema or annotations, the description gives minimal but functional guidance. It lacks details on return values, error scenarios, and rate limits, leaving some uncertainty.

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 100%, so schema already documents all parameters. The description adds some context: body is a JSON string and form=true sets x-www-form-urlencoded. This is useful but not extensive.

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 'Escape hatch: authenticated POST against any path', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a generic POST endpoint, while siblings are specific for datasets, forms, processes, etc.

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 term 'escape hatch' implies it is for cases where no specific tool exists. It also provides guidance on using form=true for x-www-form-urlencoded. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to the related get tool (fluig_rest_get).

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