ms_call_method

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the exact behavior: read endpoints run immediately, write/destructive require extra flags, and nothing is sent for destructive if not confirmed. It also describes the return format (JSON envelope with ok, status, data or error). 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?

The description is well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then separates read vs write/destructive behavior, and lists parameters. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. Could be tightened slightly but effective.

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 complexity as a generic endpoint executor, the description covers the flow for read, write, and destructive operations, parameter purposes, and the return format. With an output schema present, the return description is sufficient. No gaps identified.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: operation_id (from catalog), path_values (for placeholders), query (query-string), body (JSON), confirm_write (required for write/destructive), and i_understand_this_modifies_data (required for destructive). This provides complete meaning beyond the schema.

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 catalog endpoint by operation_id, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ms_call_raw and ms_search_methods. It also specifies that read endpoints run immediately, while write/destructive require confirmation.

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 explicit usage guidance: read endpoints run immediately, write endpoints need confirm_write=true, and destructive endpoints require both confirm_write and i_understand_this_modifies_data. It also references `{svc}_search_methods` to find operation_id, giving context on when to use this tool and how to select the correct operation.

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