Custom REST Write

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it labels the tool as an 'open-ended escape hatch', warns about DELETE being destructive, and advises checking the path. No contradictions with 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 concise at four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds essential information without repetition or fluff.

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 the high schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and behavioral traits completely for an escape hatch tool. No missing context that would confuse an 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains the method enum (destructive hint for DELETE), specifies path format (no host, no /api/v4 prefix, no query string), describes when to omit body, and clarifies query string usage and userCredentials fallback behavior.

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 tool executes arbitrary POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE requests to the GitLab REST API, and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'execute_rest_read' by explicitly directing reads to that alternative.

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 provides explicit guidance: use this tool for write endpoints not covered by dedicated tools, and for reads use 'execute_rest_read'. It also warns about destructive actions (DELETE) and advises checking the path before invoking.

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