flare_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the request is routed through FlareSolverr to bypass protection, implying potential latency and external dependency. However, it does not mention whether it is safe to retry, what the response contains, whether it mutates server state, or how sessions interact with calls — gaps for a networked POST tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and mechanism. No wasted words, but could be tightened slightly by combining the purpose and use case into one sentence.

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?

The description covers the fundamental operation but leaves out important behavioral context such as interaction with session persistence, error handling for unsolvable challenges, and what the caller can expect in the response. Given 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a more thorough behavioral note would help.

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 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters well (e.g., postData format, session ID, maxTimeout). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is in the structured schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Make an HTTP POST request through FlareSolverr to bypass Cloudflare/DDoS protection.' This clearly distinguishes it from flare_get (GET vs POST) and the session management siblings. It lacks a bit of specificity around what the result looks like, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It says 'Useful for submitting forms or API calls behind protection,' which gives a general use case but does not explicitly state when to choose this over flare_get or how to coordinate with session tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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