mealie_api_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals important constraints: only non-sensitive paths, and non-GET methods need explicit confirmation and mutation scope. However, it lacks details on error behavior, response format, or what happens on sensitive paths, leaving significant gaps for a generic API tool.

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?

Two sentences with front-loaded purpose and immediately useful safety/alternative guidance. Every sentence contributes essential information, with no fluff or repetition.

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 a generic API request tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers key safety constraints but omits practical details like how to construct paths, what 'non-sensitive' means, or error handling. It is adequate for a low-level tool but not comprehensive.

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%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains 'method' (non-GET implies method) and 'confirmed_by_user' (explicit confirmation), but provides no meaning for 'body', 'params', or 'path' beyond their names. Two of five parameters are partially addressed, which is insufficient.

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 this is a generic JSON API request for non-sensitive paths, providing a specific verb ('request') and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool mealie_api_operation_request by noting the latter is preferred for validation. However, it doesn't fully specify the range of operations (e.g., CRUD) or what makes paths sensitive.

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 explicitly says to prefer mealie_api_operation_request for validation and states that non-GET methods require user confirmation and mutation scope. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, addressing both alternatives and prerequisites.

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