ym_write_raw

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it supports only POST/PUT/PATCH, requires confirm_write=true, and returns a specific JSON envelope or error envelope. It also notes the host override behavior. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and safety requirements.

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 with the core purpose, then the API link, then method constraints, then parameter list, then return format. Every sentence earns its place. The parameter list is a bit dense but still readable. Minor deduction for the 'Args:' block being a bit telegraphic, but overall efficient.

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 has an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential operational details: allowed methods, required confirm_write flag, path format, host override, and return envelope. It doesn't explain error cases beyond 'error envelope', but that is acceptable given the output schema exists. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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: it explains method (POST/PUT/PATCH only), path (full path beginning with '/'), host (override, defaults to service default), query (query-string parameters), body (JSON request body), and confirm_write (must be true). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles and defaults, though it could be slightly more explicit about the body being optional.

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 states a specific verb ('Create or update data') and a specific resource ('at ANY path, including paths not in the catalog'), which clearly distinguishes it from catalog-bound tools like ym_write_method. It also names the target API and HTTP methods, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly says it can write to any path, including non-catalog paths, which implies when to use it (when the path is not in the catalog or when you need raw access). It also states the constraint 'requires confirm_write=true' and lists allowed methods. However, it does not explicitly say 'use ym_write_method for catalog paths' or name alternatives, so it misses the explicit 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.