atelierb_write_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the default backup behavior, which is valuable, but does not clarify whether it creates new files or only updates existing ones, nor does it mention permissions or validation of file paths. This leaves some ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core action, lists supported file types, and mentions the backup feature without redundancy or wasted 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 simple write tool with three well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, file scope, and backup behavior. It lacks explicit mention of return values or error handling, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds allowed file types (e.g., .mch, .c, .h) which provides some context for the file_path parameter, but it doesn't significantly enrich understanding beyond the schema.

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 tool writes or updates content of specific file types (B source, C code, Makefile) in the workspace. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like atelierb_read_file, making its purpose unambiguous.

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: this is the tool for writing/updating files in the workspace. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'write/update' verb and file type list give sufficient guidance for an agent to know when to use it.

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