write_crossproject

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

Even though no annotations are provided, the description discloses overwrite semantics, the writeAllowlist restriction, and that all writes are logged. This covers the most important behavioral traits for a write operation.

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 focused sentences deliver the core action, scope, usage guidance, constraints, and logging behavior. Every sentence earns its place, with the primary purpose front-loaded.

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?

The description sufficiently covers what the tool does, where it applies, when not to use it, write restrictions, and side effects. Return/error details are not specified, but they are less critical for a straightforward write tool without 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context about the configured workspace root but does not add meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters.

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 opens with 'Create or overwrite a file in a configured workspace root,' giving a clear verb, object, and scope. It further distinguishes the tool from current-project tools and from sibling read/search/list/run operations.

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 tells the agent to prefer built-in IDE editing/refactoring tools for current-workspace files, providing an exclusion condition. It also clarifies the intended use case—another repo exposed via MCP. It does not explicitly direct modification of existing cross-project files to edit_crossproject, but the core guidance is present.

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