direct_apply_write

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Same key replays the stored result' largely restates idempotency. It does add one genuine trait beyond annotations: 'spends units' discloses a billing/cost dimension, and 'then read back' hints at sequencing. It says nothing about what a destructive execute actually changes or what authorization is needed.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: the action comes first, then replay semantics, then the cost warning. Compact and readable, though the parenthetical parameter list and the dangling 'write flag' mention add slight ambiguity rather than clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values after the read-back need not be explained. But for a destructive, open-world, five-parameter mutation that spends units, the description is thin: it omits the meaning of service, method, and items, does not describe what gets mutated, and does not fully explain the prepare-to-apply handoff relative to sibling tools.

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%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining five required parameters. It names only approval_id and idempotency_key (plus an ambiguous 'write flag'), leaving service, method, and items completely undocumented in both schema and description. The partial naming of two of five required fields is inadequate compensation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: execute an accepted Direct write once, then read back. The word 'accepted' signals this is the commit half of a prepare/apply pair, and 'then read back' clarifies the post-write behavior. It does not differentiate itself from the closely related siblings direct_write, direct_apply_changes, or direct_prepare_write, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Mentioning 'an accepted Direct write' and requiring approval_id implies a prior prepare/approval step, and 'Same key replays the stored result' implies retry safety. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus direct_prepare_write, direct_write, or direct_apply_changes, nor what constitutes an 'accepted' write. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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