write_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses destructive behavior ('overwrite without warning'), creation capability, and directory handling ('create parent directories'). It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or response format, but for a tool with no annotations, this is strong coverage.

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 sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose, second warns about destructive behavior, third adds directory creation. It's front-loaded with core functionality and wastes no words.

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 destructive mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers key behaviors (overwrite, directory creation) but lacks details on parameters, error cases, or return values, which are needed for full context.

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 compensate. It explains 'path' and 'content' implicitly through context (document creation/overwrite) and mentions 'createDirectories' functionality. However, it doesn't detail parameter formats (e.g., path syntax, content constraints), leaving gaps despite some added meaning.

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 the verb ('create' or 'overwrite') and resource ('markdown document'), specifying it can create new documents or completely overwrite existing ones. It distinguishes from siblings like 'edit_document' (partial edits) and 'create_documentation_section' (section-specific creation).

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 clear context with 'Use with caution as it will overwrite existing documents without warning,' indicating when to be careful. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like 'edit_document' for partial updates or 'create_folder' for directory-only operations, which would make it a 5.

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