Handle named MCP gateway protocol requests

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, and destructive hints are all false, but the description adds only the authorization class (public). No behavioral details such as side effects, state changes, or failure modes are disclosed, adding minimal 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?

The description is brief (two sentences), but it lacks essential details. It is front-loaded with the operation path and auth class, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness.

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?

Despite having an output schema and nested objects, the description does not explain the tool's overall function beyond 'handle requests'. It fails to specify what the request body should contain, how gatewayId is used, or what the response represents, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of the parameters. The 'body' and 'path' objects are mentioned only by name, leaving the agent without guidance on their content or purpose.

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 'Handle named MCP gateway protocol requests' and provides the HTTP method and path, but it does not clarify what 'handle' means (e.g., create, invoke, or forward). It vaguely distinguishes from sibling GET tool by mentioning POST operation, but the purpose remains ambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., the GET version or other gateway tools). No context on prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions is provided.

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