ECP POST (raw)

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the side-effecting nature. The description repeats 'Side-effecting' but adds no additional behavioral context such as consequences of misuse or rate limits. Minimal added value beyond annotations.

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?

Two efficiently crafted sentences: first states the core action with an example, second provides a cautionary note and alternative. No filler, front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and informative annotations, the description covers the core function, safety warning, and alternative usage. Some detail about endpoint validation or response behavior is missing, but overall sufficient for a straightforward POST 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 coverage is 50% with only the 'device' parameter described. The description adds an example endpoint value ('/sgrendezvous/track') but does not clarify the format or constraints of the 'endpoint' parameter. Some help, but incomplete for the undocumented parameter.

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 the action ('POST to an arbitrary ECP endpoint') with a concrete example ('e.g., /sgrendezvous/track'), distinguishing it from other tools. It also mentions a safer alternative (list_post_presets), reinforcing its unique role.

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?

Explicitly advises when to use the tool ('agents should use list_post_presets for safe defaults'), providing clear guidance on appropriate use cases and a direct alternative.

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