rest

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that GET is read-only, that mutations are gated behind confirm:true, and crucially that omitting confirm returns a dry-run preview of the request that would be sent rather than performing it. Gaps remain around authentication/permission requirements and what a successful GET returns, but the key safety behavior is explicit.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, read/write split, confirm semantics, and path safety. The safety-critical rules are front-loaded and nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 4-parameter passthrough with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, mutation gating, dry-run preview, and path rejection — the essentials an agent needs to call it without causing accidental writes. It stops short of describing expected response payloads or error behavior for rejected paths.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by adding meaning the schema lacks: the confirm parameter's dry-run fallback behavior and the path validation rule (paths outside /rest/v1 or containing .. are rejected). It still doesn't clarify body expectations or response shape per method.

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 specific verb+resource: a passthrough to the P5 REST API rooted at /rest/v1, with a concrete path example ("general/jobs"). That is enough for an agent to know this is a raw HTTP escape hatch, though it never contrasts itself with dedicated siblings such as jobs or job, so the agent must infer when a generic call is preferable.

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?

Usage is implied through the method/confirm rules: GET is safe and direct, POST/PUT/DELETE need confirm:true. However there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over the purpose-built sibling tools, nor any prerequisite or prerequisite-failure guidance beyond path rejection.

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