write_raw_html

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that it writes to a file. It does not mention overwriting behavior, file creation, encoding, or how parameters like 'options' and 'budget' affect the operation, leaving significant gaps.

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, but it is under-specified for a tool with six parameters and nested objects. It omits essential information, so the brevity is not appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 complexity (6 params, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the 'raw' concept, the role of template/content/html, or how to use the tool correctly, providing almost no contextual value.

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, but it provides no parameter details. The six parameters, including nested objects like 'options' and 'budget', are left entirely unexplained, making it impossible to know their roles or formats.

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 'write' and the resource 'raw HTML content' to a file, providing a specific purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like 'write_html_file', leaving potential ambiguity about the difference between 'raw' and 'file' writing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'write_html_file' or 'format_html'. The term 'raw' implies a use case for unformatted content, but this is not made explicit, and no exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned.

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