ym_write_method

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description's main added behavioral value is the confirm_write guard: 'nothing is sent without it.' It also discloses the response shape and target API. It stops short of describing auth requirements, rate limits, or side-effect granularity, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden; there is no contradiction.

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, safety guard, sibling routing, then a scannable Args list and return envelope. 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-driven executor, it provides the essential loop: discover operation_id via ym_search_methods, supply path/query/body, and pass confirm_write=true. The output envelope is stated, and an output schema is present, so return-value detail isn't required. It could have explicitly pointed to ym_describe_method for per-endpoint parameter requirements, but the catalog pointer largely covers this.

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 parameter meaning, and it does: operation_id comes from the catalog, path_values fill {placeholders}, query holds query-string parameters, body is the JSON request body, and confirm_write must be true. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 names a specific action and resource: 'Execute one WRITE endpoint from the catalog: create or update data.' It further distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that irreversible operations live in ym_delete_method and reads in ym_call_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?

It gives an explicit precondition and safety rule: 'Requires confirm_write=true; nothing is sent without it.' It also tells the agent where to route other operation types (ym_delete_method for irreversible, ym_call_method for reads) and where to find operation IDs (ym_search_methods).

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