ym_call_method

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

The description discloses exactly how the guardrails behave: read endpoints run immediately, writes require confirm_write, destructive endpoints require both confirm_write and i_understand_this_modifies_data. This meaningfully exceeds the annotations (destructiveHint=true) by explaining the safety mechanism and that nothing is sent for destructive endpoints without explicit confirmation.

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 purpose is stated in the first sentence, the safety escalation (read → write → destructive) is in a clear three-line block, and every parameter has a one-line definition. No filler; high signal density.

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 endpoint executor, the description covers prerequisites (operation_id from ym_search_methods), argument categories, write/destructive guardrails, and the response envelope. The catalog linkage and output-shape note make it self-sufficient despite the absence of an output schema.

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 schema descriptions at 0%, the description compensates fully: it defines operation_id as a catalog ID, path_values as placeholder substitutions, query as query-string parameters, body as the request JSON, and both safety flags with exact conditions. This is exactly the extra meaning an agent needs to invoke the call correctly.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Execute one catalog endpoint by operation_id.' This immediately frames the tool as the execution counterpart to discovery tools like ym_search_methods and ym_describe_method, and the read/write/destructive breakdown further sharpens what it 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?

Provides clear operational guidance: operation_ids come from {prefix}_search_methods, writes require confirm_write=true, destructive calls require the additional i_understand_this_modifies_data=true, and reads run immediately. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like ym_call_raw, so the when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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