connector_network_post

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

With no annotations, the description discloses mutation behavior (confirm required), dry-run capability, and error conditions. However, it omits authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects beyond mutation.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, Raises sections and a clear summary sentence. It is appropriately detailed without excessive verbosity.

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 5 parameters and no annotations, the description covers most behaviors (mutation, dry-run, errors) but lacks details on rate limits, network dependencies, and does not clarify the extra 'settings' parameter.

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 description adds meaning to parameters via docstring but introduces a 'settings' parameter not present in the input schema, causing inconsistency. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but with a discrepancy.

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 'Proxy a POST request to the Network Application via Cloud Connector,' specifying verb, resource, and distinguishing from sibling HTTP method tools (delete, get, patch, put).

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 explains the need for 'confirm' to execute the mutation and 'dry_run' to preview, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like GET or other tools.

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