hh_write_raw

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the basic safety profile is known. The description adds value by requiring confirm_write=true, which indicates a deliberate confirmation mechanism for writes, and it mentions the return envelope. It does not disclose potential side effects or failure modes beyond the error envelope, but it does not contradict 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by concise details. The Args list is necessary because the schema lacks descriptions, and it is structured and readable. It is not overly verbose; every sentence contributes, though the list makes it slightly longer than a purely minimal description.

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 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, but an existing output schema, the description covers all essential information: method, path format, host, query, body, confirm flag, and the return JSON shape. It also points to the target OpenAPI spec. It does not elaborate on error handling beyond 'error envelope', but the output schema already provides that structure, so overall completeness is high.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by listing each parameter with meaningful constraints: method is restricted to POST/PUT/PATCH, path must be a full path beginning with '/', host and query are optional overrides, body is JSON, and confirm_write must be true. This goes far beyond the bare schema types and gives clear behavioral requirements.

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 opens with 'Create or update data at ANY path, including paths not in the catalog.' This is a specific verb (create/update), a clear resource (data at any path), and it distinguishes itself from catalog-scoped tools by explicitly covering non-catalog paths, which differentiates it from siblings like hh_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 clear context: it states acceptable HTTP methods (POST, PUT, PATCH), requires confirm_write=true, and specifies the path must begin with '/'. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, the 'any path' scope implies it is the general write tool, giving sufficient context for when to use it.

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