diadoc_write_raw

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds the HTTP method whitelist, the confirm_write guard, host defaulting behavior, and the return envelope/error envelope. It does not fully describe side effects or auth requirements beyond the target API link, but the annotation context lowers the burden.

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: purpose first, then API link, method restrictions, Args, and Returns. Minor redundancy exists between 'POST, PUT and PATCH only' and the method arg entry, but overall it is economical and scannable.

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?

An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly: all parameter semantics, required confirmation, and return shape are present. It could be more complete by explicitly relating it to sibling tools and addressing safety caveats of writing to arbitrary paths, but those are partially covered by annotations and the confirm_write requirement.

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%, yet the description documents every parameter: method values, path format, host override/default, query, JSON body, and the confirm_write guard. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opening sentence names a concrete verb ('Create or update') and a resource ('data at ANY path, including paths not in the catalog'), which clearly communicates the raw write scope. This also distinguishes it from catalog-based siblings like diadoc_write_method.

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 provides strong constraints (POST/PUT/PATCH only, confirm_write=true) and implies use for arbitrary/non-catalog paths, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over diadoc_write_method or call_method, nor when not to use it. The situational guidance is mostly left to inference.

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