ds_raw_put

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'pass through' without mentioning side effects, authentication requirements, response format, or potential destructiveness. Since PUT typically modifies resources, this omission is significant.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core information and is appropriately sized for a simple pass-through tool, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, this one-sentence description is severely inadequate. An agent cannot determine how to construct the request, what the response will be, or what side effects to expect.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to the three parameters (path, form_data_json, json_body_json). Parameter names give vague hints, but the description does not clarify expected formats or how they relate to the PUT request.

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 tool's function: passing a PUT request to the DolphinScheduler API. It identifies both the HTTP method and the target resource, and the sibling tools (ds_raw_get, ds_raw_delete, ds_raw_post) make the differentiation by method explicit.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or situations where another method (GET, DELETE, POST) would be more appropriate. The user must infer solely from the tool name.

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