Run a Single Postman Request

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint false, so the agent knows this can perform writes and is not destructive. The description adds little beyond 'execute' and 'structured result,' and does not mention safety gates like allowWrites or approval flows. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not provide additional behavioral context.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core action and scope, and the second sentence adds a practical use case. Every word earns its place.

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 9-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the approval workflow (allowWrites, allowProduction, approvalNote) or describe the structure of the 'structured result.' However, the schema provides detailed descriptions for many parameters, partially compensating for the description's brevity.

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 67%, providing a solid baseline. The description adds some meaning by clarifying that the request can be 'optionally scoped to a folder,' which helps interpret folderId and folderName. However, it does not elaborate on other parameters such as environment, allowProduction, or timeout, which are already documented in the schema.

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 a specific action ('Execute a single named request') with an optional scope ('optionally scoped to a folder') and a distinct use case ('re-running one failing test case'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_folder, which would run multiple requests.

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?

Provides clear context for use ('Useful for re-running one failing test case') but does not explicitly mention when to use run_folder instead. The 'single named request' wording implies the contrast with run_folder, but no alternative tool is named or exclusion is stated.

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