ECP POST (raw)

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a side-effecting warning and a safer-alternative advisory, but it does not detail what consequences an arbitrary POST may have or what resources might be affected. Given the annotations carry the core safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Three short sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, followed by a safety warning and a routing alternative. Every sentence 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 two-parameter raw POST tool, the schema fully documents parameters and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description provides purpose and alternative routing. The only minor gap is the lack of any mention of return values or error behavior, but this is not critical for selecting and invoking the tool 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 100%, so both device and endpoint parameters are already documented in the schema. The description repeats 'arbitrary endpoint' and provides an example but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('POST') applied to an arbitrary ECP endpoint, with a concrete example. It explicitly distinguishes itself from ecp_query and list_post_presets, so an agent can tell what this tool is for without opening the schema.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: use list_post_presets for safe defaults, and use ecp_query for read-only lookups. This clearly tells an agent when to prefer alternatives and, by extension, when this raw POST tool is appropriate.

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