ECP POST (raw)

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description's 'Side-effecting' statement mostly restates what the annotations provide. It adds the safety-focused guidance to prefer presets, but does not reveal additional behavioral details such as what state may change, auth requirements, or response behavior.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then immediately provides safety and alternative routing guidance.

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 raw, side-effecting POST tool, the description covers the key concerns: arbitrary endpoint, side effects, safe defaults, and read-only alternatives. It could mention what kind of response to expect, but given the arbitrary nature and lack of output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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% and the endpoint parameter description already includes examples and the warning that arbitrary paths are sent verbatim. The tool description adds context about the endpoint being arbitrary, but does not materially enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 to an arbitrary ECP endpoint') with a concrete example path and differentiates itself from sibling tools by naming list_post_presets and ecp_query. An agent immediately understands what this tool does and what it is not for.

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 explicitly tells agents when not to use this tool: use list_post_presets for safe defaults and ecp_query for read-only lookups. This is clear routing guidance that prevents unsafe or incorrect invocations.

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