CPI Write (create/update/delete any entity)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the ALLOW_WRITE permission requirement and the mandatory confirm=true for every call, which adds valuable safety context. However, it does not describe side effects, irreversibility, response format, or error behavior, leaving gaps for a destructive low-level tool.

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 highly concise: three sentences that state the purpose, a key prerequisite, and the path convention. No filler or redundancy, and the most important information is 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 generic write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, the required permission, the confirmation requirement, and path format. It lacks guidance on when to use it vs. specific tools and does not explain response behavior, but it is minimally adequate for a low-level tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 75%, with method lacking a description. The description adds a path example and clarifies that confirm=true applies to all methods, which supplements the schema. It does not deeply explain method semantics, but the schema's enum and the description's verb mapping provide reasonable guidance.

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 a specific verb ('create/update/delete') and a resource ('any CPI OData path'), making the generic write intent unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly labeling itself 'low-level' and 'any entity'.

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 conveys a clear context: it is a low-level tool that can operate on any OData path, implying it is the tool of last resort or for custom paths. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer specific sibling tools (e.g., create_integration_package) instead, so no exclusions are provided.

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