api_request

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

With annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description still adds genuinely new behavior: no redirects are followed, non-safe methods require an explicit authorized policy, and secrets should come from env references. It stops short of saying what happens on assertion failure, whether the response body is returned, or what the policy's deniedTargets/redactKeys actually do.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The compression goes slightly too far — 'and status/body/schema/timing assertions' is a fragment missing its verb — which costs a point on structure.

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?

This is a complex, destructive, open-world tool with a deeply nested schema, no output schema, and 0% schema documentation, yet the description is three sentences. It omits how step assertions combine, how captures feed later steps, what a failed assertion yields, and what side effects a destructive request can have — all of which an agent needs before calling it.

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 carry the parameter burden and largely does not. It mentions the method default and the policy object only in passing, while the entire nested 'step' surface — capture, headers, checks, jsonSchema, maxDurationMs, allowSoapFault, soapAction, soapVersion, path vs target — is never explained anywhere.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('one explicit REST/SOAP request') plus the assertion dimensions (status/body/schema/timing), so it is clearly not a document reader like api_document_read nor a database call. It never explicitly contrasts itself with any sibling, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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?

'GET/HEAD/OPTIONS by default; supply a user-authorized policy for other methods' tells the agent how to unlock writes, which is real conditional guidance. But there is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus database_query, ui_action, or the api_document_* tools — the tool-selection decision is left to inference.

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