aspro_write

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

Beyond the annotations' destructiveHint=true, the description adds specifics: changes are applied to the live account and cannot be undone, and delete is served over HTTP GET. This gives the agent crucial behavioral expectations not derivable from schema or annotations.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then warning, usage, and the GET quirk. No fluff – each sentence provides actionable information.

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 description covers purpose, destructive warning, workflow (aspro_describe), and a surprising HTTP GET behavior. While module/entity/method semantics are left to aspro_describe, the tool is generic and the instruction to run describe first is a viable handoff. Given no output schema, it does not explain return values, but that's acceptable for a write tool.

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 covers id, body, and query descriptions (50% coverage). The description reinforces id as entity id and body as body fields, but module, entity, and method remain undocumented. It points to aspro_describe for context, partially compensating, but the description adds limited new meaning beyond 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 tool writes (create/update/delete) data in Aspro.Cloud, distinguishing it from read-only siblings like aspro_list_* and aspro_search. It also emphasizes the destructive nature, which is a key distinguishing trait.

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?

It explicitly instructs to run aspro_describe first, setting up a workflow. The destructive warning implies caution, and the mention of create/update/delete implies it's for mutations, separating it from read tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name read-only alternatives or say when not to use.

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