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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two important traits: the write is persistent ("every later run reads it") and it is scoped to owner-editable files. It does not say what happens when a path is rejected, whether prior content is recoverable (firm_history exists), or whether the write requires a decision/approval step — notable gaps for a mutation 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?

Two short sentences, no filler. The scope constraint (which files are editable) is stated first, followed by the consequence of the write, so the most decision-relevant facts are 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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope and persistence, which are the traits an agent most needs. It could still say what a rejected path or an overwrite of existing content does, but the essential picture is present.

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 100%, so all three parameters (path, body, message) are already documented in the schema, including that body is "the whole new file." The description's path enumeration adds mild real-world context for `path` but nothing about `message` or overwrite semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Edit") and resource ("a file the owner may edit"), then enumerates the concrete file families (gtm/icp.md, gtm/playbook.md sections, practice/*.md, SKILL.md, card.md), which distinguishes it from read_firm_file. It stops short of naming any sibling as an alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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 enumeration of editable paths functions as an implicit precondition (only those files), and "The change is a commit; every later run reads it" signals when the effect matters. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus read_firm_file, firm_history, or decide_firm_change, and no statement about approval prerequisites.

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