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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavior: writes to the GitHub repo, defaults to the dev branch, supports overwriting ('replace existing ones'), and is limited to one file per call. It also implies the write does not deploy, since separate promote and build steps are needed. This goes beyond a simple mutation statement.

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 dense sentences: the first establishes purpose and distinctiveness, the second gives the workflow and default branch. No wasted words, all information is actionable. The structure front-loads the most critical information.

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?

The description provides a surprisingly complete picture for a write tool with no output schema: it explains the exact sequence of related tool calls (write→promote→build), the default branch, and the one-file limit. It could mention error behavior or prerequisites, but for its purpose it is nearly complete.

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 each parameter is documented. The description adds the usage-level constraint of 'one file per call' but doesn't clarify parameter formats or interactions beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states 'Write a file to the solution's GitHub repo' and specifies the use case: 'create new connector files or replace existing ones — one file per call.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by calling itself the 'PRIMARY way to write connector code after first deploy' and references the deploy workflow.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this to create new connector files or replace existing ones') and a clear sequence: 'Write each file individually... then call ateam_github_promote()... then ateam_build_and_run() to deploy.' It also mentions the one-file-per-call constraint, giving clear operational context.

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