litellm_write

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

Discloses the non-destructive nature and create/update semantics, but doesn't detail permissions, idempotency, or effects on existing resources. With no annotations, more depth would be helpful.

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?

Three concise sentences plus a clear example; no redundant information. The key points are front-loaded.

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 broad multi-resource tool, the description adequately orients the agent, leveraging the operation='help' mechanism to discover specifics. No output schema exists, but the help command mitigates this gap.

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 explains the operation parameter via the help mechanism and gives an example with params, compensating for the schema's lack of detail. It clarifies that params is a JSON object but doesn't enumerate possible values beyond the example.

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?

Clearly states 'Create or update LiteLLM resources (non-destructive)' with a list of resource types, distinguishing this write tool from siblings like litellm_delete and litellm_read. The verb and resource scope are specific.

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 explicit usage instructions: call with operation='help' to list operations, otherwise pass operation name and params. It doesn't explicitly exclude use cases but the non-destructive label implies when to use vs delete.

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