ms_write_method

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context: the confirm_write gate ('nothing is sent without it'), the target API URL, and the return envelope ('Returns JSON: {"ok": true, "status", "data"} or the error envelope'). It doesn't detail side effects or reversibility, but the sibling routing covers the destructive case. This exceeds the baseline for annotation-covered tools.

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: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, the critical confirm_write requirement in the second, and sibling routing in the third. The Args list is terse and each line earns its place. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 5-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, the description covers the essential context: target API, safety gate, sibling routing, parameter semantics, and return format. The output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation. Minor gaps: it doesn't mention authentication requirements or error-handling specifics, but the error envelope is noted and the target API link provides a reference. This is nearly complete for an agent to invoke the tool 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 explains each parameter's role: operation_id is 'id from the catalog (see ms_search_methods)', path_values are 'values for {placeholders} in the path', query is 'query-string parameters', body is 'JSON request body', and confirm_write 'must be true'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles and gives the agent enough to construct a valid call.

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 ('Execute one WRITE endpoint'), the resource ('catalog'), and the action class ('create or update data'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings: 'Irreversible operations live in ms_delete_method, reads in ms_call_method.' This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from the most similar alternatives.

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 when to use this tool (for write endpoints) and when not to (irreversible operations go to ms_delete_method, reads to ms_call_method). It also states a critical prerequisite: 'Requires confirm_write=true; nothing is sent without it.' This is clear, actionable guidance for an agent deciding between siblings.

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