ms_write_raw

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

Annotations already signal a mutating, open-world operation, and the description adds method restrictions, the mandatory confirm_write guard, and the return/error envelope. This gives an agent the key behavioral guardrails beyond what readOnlyHint/openWorldHint convey.

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-loads the core purpose before a clear Args block. The only minor redundancy is repeating 'confirm_write must be true' in both the prose and the parameter list; otherwise it is lean.

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?

With an output schema present and 6 parameters, this description is largely complete: it names the target API, allowed methods, path format, host override, query/body, confirmation gate, and return envelope. It could add a note about auth or preconditions for arbitrary raw writes, but nothing essential is missing.

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: it explains method values, path format, host default, query/body JSON nature, and confirm_write requirement. Every parameter in the schema is accounted for with usable semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create or update data at ANY path, including paths not in the catalog.' This clearly distinguishes ms_write_raw from catalog-bound siblings and the sibling delete/read raw tools. The allowed methods (POST, PUT, PATCH) further pin down the operation.

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 concrete invocation constraints: POST/PUT/PATCH only, confirm_write must be true, and non-catalog paths are supported. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over ms_write_method, ms_call_method, or ms_delete_raw, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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