call_write

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Create or change' is consistent. It adds the useful JSON-body-only constraint, but does not disclose responses, auth needs, rate limits, or side-effect details.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and readable, though it could have used additional structure to explain the generic pass-through behavior.

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 low-level generic API caller with five parameters and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain how to assemble path_params, query, and body together, nor what a successful write call returns or how to discover operation-specific details.

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 80%, so most parameter meaning is already documented. The description adds minimal value beyond 'JSON bodies only,' which clarifies the body parameter but does not compensate for the vague 'see describe_operation' reference.

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 uses a clear verb phrase, 'Create or change,' and identifies the tool as a generic write path through All Quiet API operations. It is distinguishable from siblings like call_read and call_delete by its write focus and method enum.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus call_read, call_delete, or the higher-level CRUD tools. The agent is left to infer that this is for write operations not covered by specific sibling tools.

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