vk_call_method

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds the actual gating protocol (confirm_write for writes, plus i_understand_this_modifies_data for destructive, and that nothing is sent otherwise) which the annotations cannot express. It also discloses the error-envelope behavior. It stops short of describing rate limits, auth prerequisites (cf. vk_check_auth), or idempotency.

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?

Tightly front-loaded: the core action is the first sentence, gating rules follow, then an Args block with one line per parameter, then a one-line return contract. No filler sentences.

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, the description needn't enumerate return fields, yet it still sketches the success/error envelope shape. For a generic dispatcher tool this covers gating, argument sourcing, and failure mode sufficiently to call it 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% and there are 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does: it defines operation_id, path_values, query, body, and the two confirmation booleans with their exact usage conditions. An agent can populate every argument from the description alone.

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 and resource: 'Execute one catalog endpoint by operation_id.' This is a precise, self-contained statement that distinguishes it from siblings like vk_search_methods (discovery), vk_describe_method (metadata), and vk_call_raw (substituting the sibling's role in the catalog flow).

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 clear operational routing: read endpoints run immediately, write and destructive endpoints are gated behind explicit confirmation flags. It also points to {svc}_search_methods as the source of operation_id. It does not explicitly contrast itself with vk_call_raw, which is the sibling an agent would most plausibly confuse it with.

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