api_request

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, which the description complements by mentioning 'safety flags' and 'dry_run' capabilities. It also discloses that the tool can be disabled via an environment variable. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not detail what the safety flags are.

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, compact sentence that conveys the key points: generic HTTP, API endpoint, safety flags, dry_run, and the environment variable to disable it. It is front-loaded and waste-free, though 'safety flags' is vague and could be more explicit.

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?

This is a generic, potentially destructive HTTP tool with no output schema and 5 parameters including nested objects. The description provides no information about return format, error behavior, or how the response maps to the request. Given the tool's complexity and risk, the description is insufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all five parameters already documented (method, path, query, body, dry_run). The description only mentions 'dry_run' which is already in the schema. It does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as a generic HTTP client for api.samotpravil.ru, distinguishing it from the numerous specialized sibling tools. It mentions safety flags and dry_run. However, it lacks a specific verb+resource since it is intentionally generic, but the generic nature is itself the purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this generic tool versus the many specific sibling tools (e.g., send_email, get_statistics). It does not state prerequisites, when not to use it, or that dedicated tools should be preferred. The only hint is the generic label, but no explicit alternatives are mentioned.

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