connector_protect_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the need for 'confirm' to execute, the 'dry_run' preview feature, and the proxy nature. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements or error handling.

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 separate Args and Returns sections, and the purpose is front-loaded. However, it includes an extraneous parameter ('settings') and could be slightly more concise.

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 no annotations and a moderate complexity (5 params), the description covers the basic operation and preview mode but omits error handling, required permissions, and rate limits. The output schema exists and is partially addressed.

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 for most parameters (e.g., path, body, confirm, dry_run) but includes a 'settings' parameter that does not exist in the input schema, creating confusion. With 0% schema description coverage, this inconsistency reduces usability.

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 verb ('Proxy a POST request') and the resource ('Protect Application via Cloud Connector'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like connector_protect_get or connector_protect_delete.

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 usage for sending POST requests to Protect API sub-paths but does not explicitly state when to use POST vs other methods (GET, PUT, DELETE) or compare with siblings. No alternative tools are mentioned.

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