avito_write_method

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: nothing is sent without confirm_write=true, create/update are reversible while delete is separate, and the response is a JSON envelope. This is useful safety-relevant information beyond 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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then target API, safety condition, sibling routing, parameter list, and return shape. Every line earns its place, and there is no filler.

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 the tool's generic nature, the description gives enough to call it correctly: where to find endpoint ids, how parameters map to request construction, the confirmation requirement, and the return envelope. It could add a small example, but the existing content plus the output schema context is largely complete.

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 carry the burden, and it does for all five parameters. It explains operation_id as a catalog id, path_values as {placeholder} substitutions, query and body as request parts, and confirm_write as a required safety flag. The explanations are brief but sufficient for a generic catalog execution tool.

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?

States a specific action plus scope: 'Execute one WRITE endpoint from the catalog: create or update data.' It also differentiates from siblings by naming avito_call_method for reads and avito_delete_method for irreversible operations, so an agent can distinguish it from the other generic execution tools.

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?

Gives clear routing guidance: writes belong here, reads in avito_call_method, irreversible operations in avito_delete_method. It also warns that confirm_write=true is required and that nothing is sent without ithola. It does not explicitly address specialized write siblings like avito_update_price or avito_update_stock, but it covers the main generic-vs-specialist decision.

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