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

Annotations are all false and provide no safety hints, so the description carries the burden and mostly delivers: it reveals that Swift files trigger immediate validation and cloud check, writes .axint/guard/latest.* proof, may create directories, and may write guard/check artifacts. However, it does not disclose failure behavior (e.g., what happens if validation fails) or permission requirements, so it is not fully transparent, but still strong.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses short sentences, but it repeats the 'use' guidance twice ('Use this instead of raw XcodeWrite...' and 'Use: use only for guarded...') and includes a somewhat redundant 'Effects' section that restates earlier points. Still, it remains reasonably tight and easy to scan.

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 complex tool with 12 parameters, two Swift validation steps, and artifact writing, the description covers purpose, usage context, effects, and default parameter values. It does not describe return values, but an output schema exists so that is acceptable. Missing details like failure handling or integration with session tokens are minor gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds extra meaning by pointing out defaults ('createDirs, validateSwift, and cloudCheck default true') and the constraint that 'path must remain inside cwd.' It also links behavior to parameters (Swift validation/cloud check) beyond schema text, adding genuine value.

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 description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Write a file inside the Xcode project through the Axint guard path') and explains the unique guard/validation behavior. It further distinguishes itself from 'raw XcodeWrite' and states it is for Apple-native files during long tasks, which clearly separates it from sibling tools like axint.xcode.guard or axint.swift.validate.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Use this instead of raw XcodeWrite when an agent is editing Apple-native files during a long task' and then provides a clear exclusion: 'outside Xcode, patch normally and validate after.' This gives both positive and negative usage guidance, fully differentiating it from alternatives.

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