write_html_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that content is written as a formatted HTML file, but does not mention whether the file is overwritten, whether formatting is applied automatically, what happens to existing files, or any side effects. This is minimal and insufficient for safe invocation.

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 a single, concise sentence with the verb placed first, making it easy to parse. It contains no extraneous words. However, it is under-specified for a tool of this complexity, so while concise, it is not optimally structured for usability.

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?

Given the tool's high complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks any information about return values, error conditions, parameter interactions, or the formatting process, making it inadequate for an agent to use correctly.

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% and there are 6 parameters including a nested options object. The description adds no meaning to any parameter, failing to clarify the roles of 'html', 'content', 'template', 'budget', 'options', or 'output_path'. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('formatted HTML file'), clearly indicating the tool's basic function. The word 'formatted' provides some differentiation from sibling tools like write_raw_html, though it does not explicitly name them or clarify the formatting behavior.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as write_raw_html, format_html, or patch_html. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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