diadoc_write_method

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=truenovel, but the description adds critical context: the confirm_write gate for safety and the irreversible nature of delete operations. It also mentions the return format, which is not in annotations. This goes beyond the structured data.

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 compact, with a brief intro, a link, then arg list and return envelope. It front-loads the key purpose. However, the Args section could be tightened and the target API link adds context that might be better placed elsewhere, but overall it's efficient.

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?

With no output schema details in annotations and schema coverage 0%, the description covers the essentials: purpose, confirm_write, return envelope. Yet it doesn't explain how to find operation_id beyond a sibling tool reference, nor does it detail error handling or special cases for write operations. Lacks some depth for complex writes.

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 must explain parameters. It lists all parameters with brief roles (e.g., 'path_values for placeholders', 'query for query string', 'body for JSON'), but lacks deeper detail like typical structure or constraints for each. This is a slight improvement over 'no info' but still leaves the agent to infer specifics.

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 a catalog, distinguishing it as a write operation. It names sibling tools for other operations (reads and deletes), but does not explicitly differentiate between the multiple write-related siblings like diadoc_write_raw, which could cause confusion.

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?

The description explains the confirm_write requirement and mentions that irreversible operations are in diadoc_delete_method and reads in diadoc_call_method. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool over diadoc_write_raw, though the 'catalog' context implies it's for cataloged endpoints.

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