Invoke Write SAP Capability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly carried by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the write is reversible, whether it requires prior describe/search to obtain a valid schemaHash, or how it differs behaviorally from the destructive sibling.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, it is under-specified rather than concise by design, leaving no room for the routing or parameter guidance the tool needs.

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?

For a non-idempotent, open-world write tool with a nested arguments object, 0% parameter documentation, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain how to obtain the schemaHash, what happens on mismatch, or how it relates to the destructive variant.

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 schema gives no prose for any of the three parameters. The description mentions schemaHash and arguments but omits the required 'name' parameter entirely and offers no format, sourcing, or validation guidance (e.g., that schemaHash must be a 64-char hex digest obtained from describe).

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?

States a verb (invoke) and scope (write capability) with the two things it needs, but 'capability' is a meta-resource and the description never distinguishes this from the sibling sap.capability.invoke_destructive, which is the boundary an agent most needs to see. Purpose is inferable but not sharp.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given, despite three closely related siblings (invoke_read, invoke_destructive, describe). The agent is left to guess whether a given capability should go through invoke_write or invoke_destructive.

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