storagebox raw request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that writes are guarded and that a confirm parameter is needed for billed resources. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication, error handling, or response format beyond the verbose parameter.

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 concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose statement. Every sentence serves a purpose: explaining usage, guards, and fallback. No wasted words.

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 the complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and behavioral notes. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication, base URL, and typical usage patterns for a raw request tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the confirm parameter for billed resources and the verbose parameter for compact view, but this does not significantly enhance understanding 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 clearly states it calls any Hetzner Storage Box endpoint directly, using a relative path. It distinguishes from sibling list tools by implying it's for arbitrary endpoints. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other raw request tools like cloud_request or robot_request.

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 mentions that reads are free and writes obey read-only and cost guards, giving some guidance. It also suggests using contribute_or_report if an endpoint is missing. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or clear alternatives for common operations.

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