ds_raw_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It says it 'passes through' the request, which is a start, but it does not describe authentication requirements, response format, error handling, side effects, or what happens if both body parameters are supplied. The 'choose one' note is ambiguous. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that makes API calls.

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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clean Args structure. Every line is meaningful: the purpose statement and three parameter definitions. There is no extraneous text or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a low-level pass-through tool.

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 description covers the basic mechanics (HTTP method, path, body types) but lacks important context for real-world invocation: no output schema, no annotations, no mention of response handling, authentication, or error behavior. It also does not clarify how to construct a valid path or the expected format of the body strings. Given the tool's simplicity, this is borderline adequate but missing key details.

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 the description must compensate. It adds useful context: path must start with '/', form_data_json is form-urlencoded as a JSON string, and json_body_json is a JSON string. However, it does not explain how the JSON strings are interpreted, what 'form-urlencoded params as a JSON string' means concretely, or the exact mutual exclusivity beyond 'choose one'. It adds meaning but leaves gaps.

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 'Pass POST through to DolphinScheduler API', which identifies the verb (POST) and the resource (DolphinScheduler API). It distinguishes from siblings like ds_raw_get, ds_raw_put, and ds_raw_delete by explicitly specifying the HTTP method. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 it is a low-level pass-through for POST requests but does not explicitly state when to use this raw tool versus higher-level specialized tools (e.g., ds_create_project). It gives a hint about body options ('choose one') but lacks clear guidance on selection criteria or exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives or prerequisites.

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