pine_new

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the overwrite behavior, the lack of a new-script creation, the persistence through subsequent saves/compiles, and the refusal when real content exists unless confirm_overwrite is set. This is strong transparency, though it doesn't mention potential side effects like clearing undo history or console state, which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Two sentences front-load the core action and then deliver the critical warning. Every word earns its place; there's no redundancy or filler. The warning is strategically placed immediately after the purpose statement.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the destructive risk, the condition under which it refuses, and the downstream effect of save/compile. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explain what the template content looks like for each type, but that's a parameter-level detail not essential to correct invocation. The confirmation guidance is present.

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 baseline is 3. The schema documents both parameters well, including the confirm_overwrite condition and the 'Read it with pine_get_source first' guidance. The description adds little beyond repeating this, though it clarifies that 'type' selects a template variant. It doesn't enrich the parameter meanings beyond the schema, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 is explicit: 'Replace the Pine editor buffer with a blank template.' It uses a specific verb, names the resource (Pine editor buffer), and clarifies it does not create a new saved script, distinguishing it from pine_open or pine_save. The warning about overwriting further sharpens the intent.

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 clearly states the destructive nature and that a following pine_save or pine_compile persists the overwrite, giving context on when to use it (when you intend to wipe the buffer). It also mentions the refusal condition and the confirm_overwrite requirement, and the schema adds 'Read it with pine_get_source first.' However, it doesn't explicitly compare against siblings like pine_open for creating new scripts, so it falls just short of a 5.

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