execute_service_layer_write_unattended

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: it warns these are real writes to the company database, states the denial condition, discloses that dry-run previews apply, and that an env flag can disable the tool entirely. It also reiterates the inherited guard rules (database must match, verb must be in slAllowedMethods).

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's distinguishing property (no approval) before the denial condition and inherited rules. Both paragraphs earn their place, though the second paragraph is dense and could be tightened slightly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the safety-critical facts an agent needs: approval gating, denial behavior, dry-run and feature-flag effects, and the inherited endpoint/verb constraints. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: database must equal the connected Service Layer database and the verb must also be permitted by the profile's slAllowedMethods. It does not add syntax or body-shape detail, but the constraint context is valuable.

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 specific verb (execute a guarded OData write) with the exact allowed methods (PATCH, POST, DELETE) and scope (no approval), and explicitly names the sibling it is not: use execute_service_layer_write when approval doesn't apply. An agent can distinguish it from the approval-gated sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition — denied unless the connected profile's slWriteApproval is "none" (a value printed by connect_database) — and names the alternative tool to use otherwise. It also clarifies the environment conditions (MCP_DRY_RUN previews, MCP_SL_WRITES_ENABLED=false disables it).

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