api_post

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'guarded', which is too vague to convey auth requirements, side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or whether the call modifies data, and POST's mutation semantics are left implicit.

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 brief and front-loaded, stating the method and target in one sentence. However, the parenthetical 'guarded' is vague and its brevity comes at the expense of missing details that other dimensions need.

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?

For a 3-parameter generic HTTP tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves path construction, headers/payload semantics, response handling, and the meaning of 'guarded' unspecified. It gives the agent only enough to know that a POST request is made.

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% and the description does not compensate. 'Against API_BASE' hints that 'path' is relative to the base URL, but headers and payload are entirely unexplained in both the schema and description, forcing the agent to rely on HTTP conventions.

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 identifies a concrete operation—sending a POST request to API_BASE—and the HTTP verb distinguishes it from the GET/PUT/DELETE siblings at a basic level. However, it remains generic and doesn't specify the kind of resource or action POST is used for beyond the method itself.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus api_get, api_put, api_delete, or api_probe. The verb 'POST' implies use for POST-style requests, but no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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