write_config_files

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

Describes irreversible action and safety steps (dry_run, user confirmation). Without annotations, this provides necessary behavioral context beyond just writing a file. Lacks details on file overwrite behavior or authentication, but sufficient for safe invocation.

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?

Description is moderately structured with a warning and steps, but could be tighter. The caution about 'Make sure you have Called...' and the step list add value but are verbose. Not exceptionally concise.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers prerequisites, safety workflow, and return types (success, diff, error). Missing details on file overwrite behavior, but overall complete for a config file 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 has 0% description coverage; description lists all three parameters (module_path, facets_yaml, dry_run) with brief explanations. 'dry_run' explanation (preview vs. apply) is helpful, but module_path and facets_yaml lack format or constraint details. Baseline compensation is adequate but minimal.

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?

Description clearly states it writes a specific file: 'facets.yaml configuration file for a Terraform module.' Uses specific verb and resource, differentiating it from siblings like write_generic_file which lack specificity.

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?

Explicitly calls out prerequisite to call FIRST_STEP_get_instructions first and provides a step-by-step workflow for safe usage (dry_run then confirmation). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or describe when not to use this tool.

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