vk_write_raw

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, destructiveHint false), the description adds that it requires confirm_write=true as a safety gate and restricts allowed HTTP methods (POST, PUT, PATCH). It also discloses the return format ({"ok": true, "status", "data"} or error envelope), providing operational context not present in annotations.

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-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the API target, method constraints, and a clear bulleted args list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 6 parameters but relatively low complexity, the description covers the API target, method constraints, parameter semantics, and return format. It does not mention authentication prerequisites, but sibling tools like vk_check_auth exist and the system likely provides context. The error envelope description is brief but sufficient for an agent to expect standard error handling.

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?

The description maps each parameter to its meaning and constraints: method (POST/PUT/PATCH), path (full path beginning with '/'), host (override), query (query-string parameters), body (JSON request body), and confirm_write (must be true). Since the input schema has no parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), this is essential clarification and goes well beyond the bare schema titles.

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 clearly states 'Create or update data at ANY path, including paths not in the catalog', specifying the verb and resource scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that operate on catalogued paths, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions constraints like POST/PUT/PATCH and confirm_write=true, but does not explain scenarios where this raw write is preferred over siblings such as vk_write_method or vk_call_method. Missing when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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