diadoc_call_method

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by spelling out the confirmation protocol: read endpoints fire immediately, writes need confirm_write=true, destructive calls need both confirm_write and i_understand_this_modifies_data, and 'nothing is sent otherwise.' That last clause is a critical safety behavior an agent could not infer from destructiveHint=true alone.

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?

Behavioral gating is front-loaded before the parameter list, and the Args/Returns blocks are compact with no redundant prose. Every line adds information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 high-complexity generic dispatcher it covers the safety model, every parameter, and the error envelope (an output schema also exists, so return details are redundant-safe). The only real gap is sibling disambiguation against call_raw/fetch_all and how paginated results should be handled.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: it documents all six parameters including placeholder semantics for path_values, query-string vs JSON body, and the exact conditions under which each confirm flag is required. This is exactly the compensation a 0%-coverage schema needs.

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') and points at diadoc_search_methods as the source of valid ids. It does not, however, distinguish itself from diadoc_call_raw or diadoc_fetch_all, which an agent could easily confuse with a generic dispatcher.

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 a clear operational workflow: obtain the operation_id from the catalog (search_methods), then call it, with explicit gating rules for write and destructive endpoints. It never states when to prefer a sibling such as diadoc_call_raw or diadoc_fetch_all, so alternative-routing guidance is absent.

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