Write theme file (full contents)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the two most important behavioral traits: full overwrite is destructive, and the tool auto-commits to git as a side effect. It does not detail return values, permissions, or rollback options, but the critical behaviors an agent must weigh before calling are covered.

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 with zero filler. The core behavior is front-loaded first, and the routing guidance follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential decisions: what it does, when to use it, and its notable side effects. It does not mention the return value or commit details, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 coverage is 100%: filename, content, and message all have descriptive text, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the auto-commit context that connects message to the git log, but all parameter meaning is already present in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new theme file or fully overwrite an existing one', and adds the auto-commit behavior. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from patch_file, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting either schema.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: 'For small edits to existing files prefer patch_file — it is safer and cheaper.' This clearly tells an agent when to choose this tool versus the alternative, leaving no condition to inference.

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