neurover_api_write

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the valuable constraint that paid operations must go through prepare/submit. However, it says nothing about the confirm flag, expectedWorkflowVersion optimistic-concurrency semantics, or what happens on failure — all behavioral traits the annotations do not convey.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the mutating nature stated first and the usage constraints immediately after. Every clause carries information the agent needs before invoking.

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 destructive, open-world, seven-parameter generic write with no output schema and no schema documentation, the description is thin: it does not explain how to obtain valid routes, what confirm or expectedWorkflowVersion do, or what a response/error looks like. The usage gate is helpful but far from sufficient for a tool of this 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% across seven parameters, and the description compensates for none of them — route, method, data, params, account, confirm and expectedWorkflowVersion carry no meaning beyond their bare names. At best it implies that a route and a write method are involved, which the schema already states via required/enum.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource pair ('Изменяющий запрос к маршруту сайта'), so an agent knows this is a generic mutating HTTP call rather than a domain operation. It is distinguishable from the many named siblings (add_node, delete_media, etc.) precisely because it is the fallback for routes lacking a dedicated tool, though 'маршрут сайта' stays vague about what routes are actually valid.

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?

Explicitly gates usage with 'Только если нет отдельного инструмента' and carves out a hard exclusion for paid runs ('платные запуски — только через prepare/submit'), which routes the agent to neurover_prepare_run/neurover_submit_generation. What it omits is discoverability: the sibling neurover_api_catalog, the natural way to find valid routes, is never named.

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