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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write; the description goes beyond that with a substantive behavioral fact (no overwrite) and an authorization requirement (account-bound computer:write OAuth plus possible local owner approval). It omits what happens on failure when the path exists and what the returned result contains, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences with the action and its no-overwrite constraint front-loaded, followed by differentiation and prerequisites. Very little waste, though the mid-sentence contrast clause is slightly compressed and readable only after a second pass.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive write tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers purpose, overwrite semantics, and auth prerequisites adequately. Minor residual gaps are how the text is rendered into the PDF and how failures (e.g., an existing path) are reported.

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 both path and text are already documented with their own constraints, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description only reinforces that output goes to an approved path and is a PDF rather than raw text, which does not add syntax or format detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a new plain-text PDF") plus the key constraint ("at the approved path without overwriting"), then explicitly contrasts with a named sibling: unlike exza_append_commander_file, a new file is produced and no arbitrary editing occurs. An agent can distinguish this from the many other write/edit siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear condition for choosing this tool (new PDF, no overwrite) and an explicit negative boundary ("no arbitrary file editing"), which routes edits to the edit/append tools. It does not explicitly distinguish from other write siblings such as exza_write_authorized_file or exza_write_home_text, so the alternative-space guidance is incomplete.

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