concept_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably: it names the optimistic-concurrency mechanism (if_match on content hash), the failure mode ('stale_write if changed'), and what the call returns (content_hash plus structural findings). It omits auth/permission needs and whether unlisted frontmatter fields are dropped on update, so it falls short of a 5.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the create/update action and followed by the concurrency and return semantics. Every clause carries information; the only cost is a slightly telegraphic 'fix them.' that assumes the reader knows what the structural findings are.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by stating what is returned (content_hash and structural findings on links, orphan, index). Combined with the concurrency and required-field notes, an agent has enough to invoke it, though sibling differentiation and mutation-side effects remain unaddressed.

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 coverage is 60%, and the description enriches the thin schema entry for if_match ('Optional content hash') into a semantic contract — optimistic concurrency yielding stale_write. It also confirms frontmatter is a YAML map with a required type field. It adds nothing for body, id, or reason, but the schema already labels reason as a commit trailer.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Creates or updates a concept') and names the required input shape (frontmatter YAML map + markdown body). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like concept_new, concept_patch, or artifact_write, leaving the agent to infer which write path to use.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. The description never routes the agent to concept_patch for partial edits, concept_new for creation, or concept_delete for removal, so the choice among several overlapping write tools is left to inference.

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