http_put

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries all responsibility for disclosing side effects, auth requirements, or other behavioral implications. It states no such information, omitting whether the request mutates state, requires special headers, or has any known pitfalls.

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 short sentence with no redundancy, but it is under-specified. It fails to front-load key information such as the purpose of PUT or anything about the request body, making it too lean to be genuinely helpful.

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 15 parameters and no output schema, so the description must provide context about expected behavior and response handling. It offers none, leaving the agent without essential information for correctly using all the options.

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?

The schema descriptions for parameters are present and cover 100% of the 15 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning to any parameter, relying entirely on the per-parameter descriptions already 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 the action ('Make') and the resource ('HTTP PUT request to the specified URL'), distinguishing it from sibling methods like http_post or http_patch by explicitly naming PUT. It is not a tautology, though it lacks a brief note on the typical use case (e.g., updating resources).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention idempotency, or contrast PUT with POST or PATCH, leaving the agent without direction for method selection.

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