wb_write_raw

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds the confirm_write=true requirement and the return envelope, which are valuable. It does not fully disclose side effects (e.g., overwrite behavior), but 'Create or update' covers the basics. With annotations present, this is adequate.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose, API reference, method constraint, then a clear Args list. The parameter list is necessary given schema underdescription, and there is no fluff. Information is front-loaded.

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?

Covers all parameters, method constraints, confirm_write requirement, and return format. Since an output schema exists, return details are handled. Authentication is likely managed elsewhere (e.g., via wb_check_auth). No missing information that would prevent an agent from calling it correctly.

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 has zero description coverage (coverage 0%), so this description is the only source of parameter meaning. Each parameter is explained with constraints: method must be POST/PUT/PATCH, path starts with '/', host override, query, body, and confirm_write must be true. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Create or update data at ANY path'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like wb_write_method by noting 'including paths not in the catalog' and restricting to POST, PUT, PATCH. Purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context that this is for arbitrary writes, especially to uncatalogued paths, which implies when to use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the 'not in the catalog' phrase effectively differentiates from catalog-based tools. Slight improvement would be explicit routing to wb_write_method.

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