fabric_connector_post

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does so exceptionally. It discloses that the call is a mutation, that it is fail-closed and gated on both confirm=true and the server's UNIFI_ENABLE_CONNECTOR_WRITE flag, that gating is checked before any network call, that errors are reported rather than raised, and that attempts are audited without logging the API key.

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 compact, front-loaded with the critical mutation/gated warning, and every sentence earns its place. It packs gating, fail-closed behavior, route targeting, response handling, audit logging, and a cross-reference into a short block without redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description covers the essential decision factors: whether the operation may be performed, how the confirm flag is used, what happens on errors, and what side effects occur. The output schema covers return fields, so the description's brief mention of status/body/routeClass is sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate. It defines body as the JSON request body, explains the confirm parameter's gating role, and gives a path example with site embedded in the route. Host, path, site, and scope are delegated to fabric_connector_get, which is a useful pointer but slightly indirect for a self-contained parameter explanation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Relay a POST (create/command) through the Fabric connector' and immediately labels it 'MUTATION — GATED.' It clearly distinguishes this from the GET twin by stating the POST has no read-before/after behavior and pointing to fabric_connector_get for shared semantics.

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 clear context for when this tool is appropriate: POST-style create/command routes, with explicit gating requirements and the note that there is no GET twin. It references fabric_connector_get for host/path/site/scope semantics, though it does not explicitly contrast this with fabric_connector_put, fabric_connector_patch, or fabric_connector_delete.

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