write_outputs

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry full burden. It mentions the need for facets.yaml and the output format but does not disclose whether the tool overwrites an existing outputs.tf file or if it has any destructive behavior. Some behavioral traits are described, but key aspects are missing.

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 well-structured with Args, Example, and Returns sections, front-loading the purpose. It is reasonably concise, though some phrasing could be tighter. Every sentence adds value.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, simple output), the description covers parameters and gives a return type. However, it omits critical context like whether the file is created or overwritten, and error handling details are sparse. An output schema exists but is not leveraged to reduce description burden.

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 0%, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains each parameter (module_path must contain facets.yaml, output_attributes and output_interfaces are maps with value and sensitive keys) and provides a concrete example. This compensates well beyond the schema's minimal type info.

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 precisely states 'Write the outputs.tf file for a module with properly formatted Terraform locals block.' It uses a specific verb (write) and resource (outputs.tf), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like write_config_files or write_resource_file.

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 an example and lists parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like write_resource_file or write_config_files. No exclusions or contextual guidance are given.

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