tc_api_write

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the safety gate (confirm=true), the regional routing behavior (project_id recommended, otherwise master/North America), and the exact return shape ('raw JSON response or {"status": 204}'). This complements the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations without contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by tight arg definitions and return behavior. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema fields, and the formatting makes it easy to scan.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return value, prerequisites, routing behavior, and parameter semantics. For a complex, dangerous escape-hatch tool with six parameters, this is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the full burden, and it does. Every parameter is explained with meaningful detail: method values, path constraints ('No scheme/host'), confirm's role as a safety gate, project_id's routing effect, params as query parameters, and body as optional JSON.

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 identifies the tool as an advanced escape hatch for raw POST/PATCH/PUT/DELETE calls to the Core API v2, with a specific scope: 'Only for endpoints with no dedicated tool'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tc_api_get and the many dedicated write tools.

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 states when to use the tool ('Only for endpoints with no dedicated tool'), providing examples such as todos, views, releases, and attributes. It also communicates critical prerequisites: 'Requires TC_ENABLE_WRITE=1 AND confirm=true', which guides the agent on safe and appropriate invocation.

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