sbis_call_method

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the burden is lighter, and the description still adds real context: the two-stage confirmation gate and the fact that an unconfirmed call sends nothing. The returned envelope shape ({ok, status, data} or error) is also disclosed. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits.

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?

Front-loads the core action and conditional requirements in three short lines, then an Args block. The Args block partially restates the schema property names, which is mild redundancy, but nothing is padded and ordering is logical.

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, high-blast-radius dispatcher this covers the essentials: what it calls, how to supply arguments, the write/destructive gate, and the return envelope (the output schema exists, so detailed return documentation is unnecessary). Auth/permission prerequisites are the remaining gap.

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 the load and it does: it explains all six params, including that path_values fill {placeholders} and that body is a JSON request body. Minor ambiguity remains (e.g. exact accepted shape of query/body, how required path_values are discovered).

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Execute one catalog endpoint by operation_id'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling discovery tools (sbis_search_methods, sbis_describe_method) and the raw escape hatch (sbis_call_raw), so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit gating conditions: write endpoints need confirm_write=true; destructive endpoints need that plus i_understand_this_modifies_data=true, and 'nothing is sent otherwise'. It also points to {svc}_search_methods for obtaining operation_id. It does not explicitly contrast with sbis_call_raw or sbis_fetch_all, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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