api_put

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'PUT request' faintly implies a side-effecting write operation, but the description does not mention authentication requirements, response shape, error behavior, or the impact of the request on the target resource.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately short for a simple tool definition, even though it sacrifices helpful context for brevity.

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?

With seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin to fully orient an agent. It omits return behavior, response truncation semantics, environment handling, and how this tool relates to the other api_* siblings.

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%, and the input schema clearly documents url, data, params, headers, maxChars, environment, and includeHeaders. The prose description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already carries that weight, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('PUT request') and the target ('API endpoint'), so an agent knows the tool performs HTTP PUT calls. However, it is very generic and does not explain what PUT is used for (e.g., replacing/updating a resource), and unlike richer sibling descriptions it offers little beyond the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use api_put versus api_post, api_patch, or api_delete, nor any mention of typical update/replace scenarios. The agent must infer usage entirely from the HTTP method name and sibling tool names.

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