crpt_write_method

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it requires confirm_write=true and states that nothing is sent without it, and it documents the success/error return envelope. It does not contradict the annotations, and while it could add more about auth or partial failure behavior, it gives a solid safety-oriented picture.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence, safety warning, routing note, compact argument list, and return format. Every sentence adds necessary operational or contextual information without padding.

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 generic catalog-driven write tool, the description covers the API target, the mandatory confirmation flag, argument semantics, return format, and sibling routing. With an existing output schema, the description does not need to explain result structures further, and the catalog reference closes the remaining gap for 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?

Since the schema has 0% description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, and it does: operation_id comes from the catalog, path_values fill placeholders, query is query-string parameters, body is JSON, and confirm_write must be true. It explains each argument at a useful level for invoking the tool, though it keeps the details intentionally generic because operation-specific shapes live in the catalog.

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 executes one WRITE endpoint from the catalog to create or update data, naming the specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the read and delete siblings by name, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 explains where other operations belong: irreversible operations live in crpt_delete_method and reads in crpt_call_method. It also directs the agent to crpt_search_methods for operation_id lookup, giving clear routing guidance and an alternative path for finding the right operation.

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