vk_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 need not repeat those. It adds value by disclosing the confirm_write safety gate and the return JSON shape (ok/status/data or error envelope). It does not discuss rate limits or auth beyond what's implied, but the annotation coverage plus the added confirm_write detail puts it above baseline.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, a target API reference, a critical requirement, sibling differentiation, a compact args list, and a return contract. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and safety condition.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, an output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers all needed call details: prerequisites, parameter semantics, return format, and how to find operation IDs. It also mentions the error envelope, which is helpful. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 carries full responsibility for explaining parameters. It does so for all five: operation_id (from catalog), path_values (for placeholders), query (query-string), body (JSON body), and confirm_write (must be true). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clear verb ('Execute'), resource ('one WRITE endpoint from the catalog'), and scope ('create or update data'). It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming vk_delete_method for irreversible ops and vk_call_method for reads, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 provides explicit usage conditions: requires confirm_write=true and nothing is sent without it. It also gives when-not-to-use guidance by pointing to vk_delete_method for irreversible operations and vk_call_method for reads, and directs the agent to vk_search_methods for operation_id lookup. This is comprehensive.

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