checkpoint

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

The description discloses several important behaviors beyond a simple write operation: it validates against specific formatting rules (2-line header comments, FEATURE tags, max nesting depth, max file length), creates a shadow restore point before writing, and rejects non-conforming code. With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden and does so thoroughly.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds distinct value: exclusivity claim, validation rules, restore point behavior, and rejection outcome. The use of ALL-CAPS for key phrases ('ONLY' and 'REJECTS') emphasizes critical points without unnecessary 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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential context: validation rules, safety mechanism (shadow restore point), and failure behavior (rejection). It gives the agent a complete mental model of what happens when the tool is invoked, including edge-case handling.

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 already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (file_path and new_content). The description adds no additional parameter-specific details beyond what the schema states. Since the schema handles parameter semantics effectively, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear, specific purpose: 'The ONLY way to write code.' It identifies the resource (code files) and the action (write/save), and differentiates from siblings like restore and lint by claiming exclusivity for write operations. It further clarifies the validation function, making the tool's role unmistakable.

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 phrase 'The ONLY way to write code' is an explicit when-to-use directive. It signals that this is the required tool for any write action, implicitly excluding alternatives for the same operation. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the absolute wording provides strong guidance and distinguishes clear usage context.

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