crpt_call_method

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the risk profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavior: read endpoints run immediately with no gate, write/destructive calls are silently no-ops when confirmations are absent, and the success/error envelope shape is disclosed. This is substantive context beyond the 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the confirmation gating, then parameters, then return shape. Every section earns its place, though the Args list retreads names that also appear in the schema and could be tightened.

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 six-parameter, open-world dispatcher with no schema descriptions, the definition supplies the gate semantics, operation_id provenance, all parameter roles, and the return envelope. An output schema exists, so the brief return note is sufficient.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it satisfies it: all six parameters are explained, including the tricky ones (path_values for {placeholders}, query for query-string params, body for the JSON payload) plus the two safety-gate booleans and where operation_id comes from.

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 ('Execute one catalog endpoint by operation_id'), which lets an agent distinguish this catalog-dispatch tool from section/cabinet siblings. It does not, however, clarify how it differs from crpt_call_raw or crpt_fetch_all, which appear to occupy adjacent niche.

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 explicit, actionable routing for the confirmation flags: write needs confirm_write=true, destructive needs both confirm_write and i_understand_this_modifies_data, and 'nothing is sent otherwise'. It also points to {svc}_search_methods as the source of operation_id. It stops short of naming when to prefer crpt_call_raw or crpt_fetch_all instead.

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