direct_prepare_write

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: 'Nothing is sent' clarifies that despite looking like a write it is purely preparatory, and the 'allowlisted' constraint plus account/endpoint binding disclose scoping behavior. It still omits approval lifetime, what consumes the approval, and any rate limits.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the key 'Nothing is sent' guarantee. No filler, though the account/endpoint clause adds a small amount of ambiguity for parameters not present in the schema.

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 need not be described. For a 3-parameter, prepare-phase operation with 0% param coverage and no annotations about auth/prerequisites, the description is adequate about intent but leaves meaningful gaps in parameter meaning and the prepare→apply handshake.

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 must carry the parameter burden. It names service, method and items (plus account/endpoint, which aren't surface parameters) but explains none of their semantics or formats — 'items' is an untyped array of free-form objects with no guidance on shape, and 'allowlisted' is never defined.

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+resource: 'Open an approval for one allowlisted Direct write'. The prepare/apply split is hinted at via 'yandex://guide/prepare-apply', which implies the counterpart apply tool. It stops short of naming direct_apply_write explicitly, so sibling differentiation is inferential rather than direct.

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?

'Open an approval for one allowlisted Direct write' plus 'Nothing is sent' implies this is the first step before an apply. However, the crowded sibling set (direct_prepare_changes, direct_write, direct_apply_write, direct_apply_changes) is not differentiated, and no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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