api_put

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but 'guarded' is the only behavioral hint and it is not explained. The description does not disclose side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or what the guard protects against. This is insufficient for a mutating operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the operation, but the words 'generic' and 'guarded' add little concrete meaning. It is concise but under-specified, so the brevity does not meaningfully support correct invocation.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter coverage, yet the description only states that it is a generic PUT to API_BASE. Essential context about path construction, payload expectations, header behavior, and return values is missing. The description is far from complete for safe invocation.

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 provides no information about path, headers, or payload. An agent must infer parameter semantics solely from the property names in the schema. The description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 states a clear operation: a generic PUT request against API_BASE. It distinguishes itself from siblings (api_get, api_post, api_delete, api_probe) by the HTTP method. The qualifiers 'generic' and 'guarded' add some ambiguity but do not obscure the core 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 given on when to use this tool versus the sibling HTTP-method tools. The description relies entirely on the name and method to imply suitability for update operations. It does not state prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions where another tool should be chosen.

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