wb_write_method

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

It discloses the critical requirement that confirm_write must be true (nothing is sent without it) and describes the return format ({"ok": true, "status", "data"} or error envelope). This adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations, which only indicate not read-only and not destructive. No contradiction with 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?

Concise and well-structured: purpose front-loaded, sibling differentiation immediately after, then a bulleted arg list, then return format. No fluff; every sentence earns its place.

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 catalog-based write method, the description covers essentials: target API, confirm flag, parameter semantics, return format, and how to find operation_id. The only minor gap is lack of examples or deeper format guidance for path_values/body, but given the catalog context and output schema presence, it is reasonably 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains each parameter's purpose: operation_id (catalog id), path_values (for placeholders), query, body, and confirm_write (must be true). It clarifies the confirm_write requirement despite the schema's default false, which is valuable. Slightly light on detailed formats but adequate.

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 it executes a WRITE endpoint for create/update operations, and explicitly differentiates from delete (wb_delete_method) and read (wb_call_method). The verb+resource is specific and the sibling distinction is unambiguous.

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 explicitly says irreversible operations belong in wb_delete_method and reads in wb_call_method, and points to wb_search_methods for finding operation_id. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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