v2_write

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

The description advertises DELETE and POST methods, which are typically destructive and non-idempotent, while annotations declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true. This is a direct conflict with the structured safety profile, so no credit can be given for behavioral disclosure.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It places the tool's role and method scope first, then adds the dryRun default and read-only mode detail efficiently.

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 powerful arbitrary-write tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema descriptions, the definition leaves key details unexplained: body/path usage, verifyPath behavior, and when to choose this over the many specific setter siblings. It is under-specified for its complexity.

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 description coverage is 0% for 5 parameters. The description adds the dryRun default and repeats the method enum, but it does not explain path formatting, body structure, or the purpose of verifyPath, so it only partially compensates for the undocumented schema.

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 this is a generic write escape hatch for any PATCH/POST/PUT/DELETE, with automatic read-back and diff. It distinguishes itself from the many specific setter siblings by being the arbitrary-method fallback, though it does not name a specific resource.

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 phrase 'Escape hatch' implies usage when no specific setter tool applies, and the dryRun default gives a safe starting posture. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over v2_set_* tools or when to avoid it, leaving alternatives to inference.

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