CPI Write (create/update/delete any entity)

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

In absence of annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses permission requirements (ALLOW_WRITE) and a special condition (confirm for DELETE), but does not mention potential side effects, error scenarios, or rate limits for this potentially dangerous write operation.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. Front-loads purpose and immediately provides key constraints. Every sentence earns its place.

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's low-level nature and lack of output schema, the description covers core functionality, prerequisites, and path formatting. Could mention return values or idempotency, but still sufficient for agent invocation.

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 adds meaning beyond the input schema by clarifying path format with an example and noting the ALLOW_WRITE requirement (not in schema). With 75% schema coverage, it compensates well for the undocumented aspects.

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 explicitly states 'Low-level create/update/delete against any CPI OData path', uses specific verbs (create/update/delete) and resource (CPI OData path), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that target specific entities (e.g., create_integration_package).

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 prerequisites ('Requires ALLOW_WRITE', 'DELETE requires confirm=true') and path format guidance. However, it lacks explicit direction on when to use this low-level tool versus the many sibling tools that offer specific operations on particular entities.

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