connector_protect_put

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses dry_run and confirm behavior, and states the return type. However, it does not cover potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 concise, with a clear purpose statement and bulleted parameters. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy. Every sentence adds value, though the 'settings' line could be removed or corrected.

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?

With an output schema present (not shown), the description adds return type info. But it omits prerequisites, error scenarios, and integration details. Given the tool's complexity as a proxy request, it is moderately complete but could include more context.

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 description must compensate. It adds meaning for parameters like console_id, path, body, confirm, dry_run, but mentions a 'settings' parameter not present in schema, causing confusion. Overall, it provides useful context but has an inconsistency.

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 PUT request to the Protect Application via Cloud Connector,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like connector_protect_get, connector_protect_post, etc., by indicating the HTTP method and target application.

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 provides explicit guidelines: confirm must be True to execute, dry_run for preview. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., when to use PUT vs POST), but the parameter instructions add clarity for correct usage.

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