hh_write_method

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the critical safety behavior that no request is sent unless confirm_write=true. It also clarifies the tool is for create/update rather than destructive actions, aligning with destructiveHint=false, and describes the response envelope including the error case. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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: it front-loads the core purpose, then gives safety guidance, sibling routing, a concise argument list, and return format. Every sentence serves a purpose and there is no fluff.

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 write dispatcher, the description covers the essential operational details: target API, confirmation requirement, sibling tool boundaries, argument semantics, and response shape. It also points to hh_search_methods for discovering operation_id, making the tool usable without external documentation.

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 must compensate. It does so by explaining operation_id as the catalog id, path_values as placeholder values, query as query-string parameters, body as JSON request body, and confirm_write as required true. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema, though it could be slightly more specific about exact formats or examples.

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. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming hh_delete_method for irreversible operations and hh_call_method for reads, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: requires confirm_write=true, nothing is sent without it, and routes irreversible operations to hh_delete_method and reads to hh_call_method. It also directs the agent to hh_search_methods for operation_id lookup, which tells the agent exactly how to use this tool in the broader workflow.

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