write_request

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses mutating nature, preview mode with confirm=false, and rejection of read-only requests. However, lacks details on side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits, which would be useful for an escape hatch.

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?

Two focused sentences with purpose first, then usage guidance. No redundant words. Every sentence adds value.

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 general escape hatch, the description adequately covers usage, preview behavior, and distinction from read_request. Lacks return value details, but no output schema is expected.

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 provides descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds critical context: confirm must be set true only after user approval, and body is optional JSON. This augments schema meaning.

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 identifies the tool as a 'MUTATING escape hatch for any write endpoint not covered by a dedicated tool', listing concrete examples like canceling gifts or writing off pledges. This provides a specific verb and resource scope, distinguishing it from siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (mutating endpoints not covered) and when not to ('use read_request for reads'). Includes a strong warning about confirm=true requiring explicit user approval, and describes preview behavior with confirm=false.

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