write_resource_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'writes' without specifying whether it overwrites, appends, or creates the file. It does not mention any preconditions (e.g., module_path must exist), permissions needed, or side effects. The return format is mentioned but not the actual behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose in first sentence, exclusion in second, then parameter list and return type. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown) and the description mentions the return format. With no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral details (e.g., overwriting behavior) to be complete for an agent. While it covers basic usage, gaps remain.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides a brief Args section clarifying each parameter (module_path, file_name, content). However, it lacks constraints, examples, or valid formats. This adds some value but is 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?

The description clearly states it writes Terraform resource files (main.tf, variables.tf, etc.) to a module directory. It explicitly excludes outputs.tf and directs to write_outputs(), distinguishing itself from that sibling.

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 explicit guidance: does not write outputs.tf, and directs users to use write_outputs() for that purpose. This helps avoid misuse. However, it does not clarify when to use this tool over other file-writing siblings like write_config_files or write_generic_file.

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