api_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says the operation is a POST request. It does not mention side effects, response format, error behavior, auth requirements, or the sanitization/filtering behavior hinted at by params like includeHeaders and maxChars.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the key verb and object, though it is too sparse for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides almost no operational context. An agent is left without information about response handling, payload conventions, or the practical consequences of a POST call, so the description alone is not enough to use the tool confidently.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline case.

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 names a specific HTTP verb (POST) and a resource (API endpoint), making the core operation immediately understandable. It is not a full tautology, but it is generic and does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like api_put or api_patch beyond the verb.

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 is provided about when to use api_post versus api_get, api_put, api_patch, or swagger_fetch. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from the HTTP method alone.

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