write_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses validation and automatic directory creation. It implies partial overwrite without specifying merge details, but overall provides useful behavior information.

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 two sentences plus a usage tip, containing exactly the necessary information with no fluff. The most critical information is front-loaded: purpose, then validation, then creation, then usage guidance.

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 (5 parameters, nested objects) and rich schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage guidelines. It lacks explicit mention of error handling or return value, but those are secondary for a write tool.

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 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that only fields to override need inclusion and defaults apply, which clarifies the optional nature of all parameters and the partial update semantics.

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 or update', the specific resource 'Grafema configuration file (.grafema/config.yaml)', and additional behaviors like validation and directory creation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are read-only or analytical.

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 explicitly says to use this tool 'after studying the project to save the discovered configuration' and explains the partial override behavior. It lacks a direct 'when not to use' statement, but the context signals make it clear this is for writing, not reading.

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