sbis_write_method

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds important behavioral context: the confirm_write guard ('nothing is sent without it'), the target API URL, and the response shape (JSON success or error envelope). This goes beyond the structured annotations and no contradiction is present.

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 organized with a one-line purpose, target URL, critical guard, sibling routing, parameter roles, and return envelope. The Args section does add value because schema descriptions are absent. It could be trimmed slightly but is appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool.

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 write dispatcher, the description covers the catalog lookup, placeholder substitution, query/body construction, confirmation flag, target API, and response envelope. It also routes edge cases to the correct sibling tools. Output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed, and no critical invocation detail 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the role of every parameter: operation_id comes from the catalog, path_values fill {placeholders}, query is query-string parameters, body is a JSON request body, and confirm_write must be true. It does not enumerate exact object shapes, but those are free-form by design.

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 action and resource: 'Execute one WRITE endpoint from the catalog: create or update data.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming sbis_delete_method for irreversible operations and sbis_call_method for reads, so an agent can route correctly without opening sibling schemas.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives: irreversible operations go to sbis_delete_method, reads go to sbis_call_method, and this tool covers create/update writes. It also states the precondition confirm_write=true and points to sbis_search_methods for finding operation_id, giving clear selection and invocation guidance.

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