Führe REST API Funktion aus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions supported methods (which are already in the schema) but fails to warn about side effects (e.g., DELETE or POST mutate data), authentication requirements, or error/return behavior. For an arbitrary API execution tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single short sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose, followed by a brief enumeration of supported methods. There is zero waste, and the most important information is 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?

As a generic, potentially destructive tool (supports DELETE, PUT, PATCH), the description is underpowered. It does not mention return format, authentication, prerequisites, or safety considerations. While the schema covers parameter semantics, the lack of annotations and output schema places full burden on the description, which it does not meet.

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 100%, so each parameter is already well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters—it only repeats the HTTP methods already present in the schema's enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description neither enhances nor detracts from schema clarity.

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 a specific action: 'Führt eine beliebige WordPress REST API Funktion aus' (executes any WordPress REST API function), and lists the supported HTTP methods. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rest_api_list_functions, rest_api_get_function_details, and rest_api_batch, which have different verbs and scopes.

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 implies general-purpose use ('beliebige') but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as rest_api_batch or rest_api_search. It gives clear context for its functionality but lacks exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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