hh_call_method

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, yet the description adds real information beyond them: exactly which confirmation flags are required per operation class, and critically that nothing is sent unless the destructive flag is supplied. That gating contract is the key behavioral fact an agent needs before invoking.

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 purpose sentence, then the confirmation rules, then a clean Args list and return-envelope line. Every sentence earns its place and the safety-critical constraint appears early rather than buried.

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?

Given destructive annotations, an output schema, and six undocumented schema parameters, the description closes the right gaps: confirmation semantics, parameter meanings, discovery source, and response envelope. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 so: every one of the six parameters is named with its meaning (path placeholders, query string, JSON body, and the two confirmation flags). It lacks format/type detail or example values, but the semantics are covered well enough to compensate for the empty schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: execute one catalog endpoint selected by operation_id, and points to the catalog-discovery sibling ({svc}_search_methods). That is clear and actionable. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely related hh_call_raw sibling, so sibling discrimination is left to inference.

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 establishes the workflow context (obtain an operation_id from the catalog via search_methods) and the behavioral conditions under which a call proceeds (read runs immediately, write/destructive require confirmation flags). No exclusion vs hh_call_raw is given, but the usage context is concrete rather than implied.

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