add_http_sampler

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Add', implying mutation, but doesn't mention side effects, requirements (like parent existence), or error behavior. This is a significant gap 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 a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the primary action and target. There is no filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 tool with 9 parameters, 6 required, and no output schema or annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain how to specify the HTTP request (method, domain, path, etc.) or what the parent node requirements are, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 only 33%, and the description adds nothing about any of the 9 parameters. It fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters (name, method, planId, parentId, protocol, etc.), leaving the agent to guess their meaning and usage.

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 verb and resource: 'Add an HTTP Request sampler' and specifies the location 'under the given parent node'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like add_thread_group or add_json_extractor by naming the sampler type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

It provides minimal context by noting the parent is 'usually a Thread Group', but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_header_manager or add_response_assertion. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer when it applies.

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