hamravesh_set_basic_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is disabled by default and supports a dry-run preview. It also hints at a safe workflow. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is destructive or what happens to existing settings beyond auth, leaving some behavioral 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 relatively concise and front-loaded with purpose. It packs multiple pieces of info (purpose, removal, workflow, disabled flag, dry run) into a compact form. The mixing of languages slightly reduces clarity but overall structure is efficient.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, removal, safe workflow, and activation requirement. However, it misses the 'org' parameter, does not describe error conditions or return values, and could be more explicit about the exact effect on the ingress configuration.

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%, so description must add meaning. It explains username and password as the credentials for auth, and implies app_id as the target app. However, the 'org' parameter is not mentioned at all, and no format or constraints are provided for any parameter.

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 sets Basic Auth on an app's ingress for protection with username/password. It also mentions removing protection by leaving fields empty. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which handle other aspects like builds, logs, or scaling.

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 provides explicit context: it mentions a secure workflow (GET → merge → PUT) and that the tool is disabled by default, requiring an environment variable to activate. It also explains how to remove auth, giving clear usage guidance. However, it does not compare to alternative auth methods or explicitly state when not to use.

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