write_cache

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Write cache', which implies a write operation but does not disclose potential side effects such as overwriting existing cache, whether the operation is destructive, or if it requires specific permissions. This is a significant gap for a file-writing tool.

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 a single concise sentence of eight words, with no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action. It earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is too thin. It lacks essential context about parameter semantics, return behavior, or interaction with the file cache node. With no annotations to supplement safety or behavioral details, the description is insufficient for correct invocation, especially since sibling cache tools exist that might be confused.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions), and the description does not compensate. Although 'path' and 'frame_range' are somewhat self-explanatory from their names, the description does not clarify that 'path' refers to the file cache node path or explain how 'frame_range' affects caching. The meaning of these parameters remains ambiguous without additional context.

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 'Write cache for a file cache node' uses a specific verb ('write') and identifies the target resource ('cache for a file cache node'). It distinguishes from sibling cache tools like 'clear_cache' and 'list_caches' by indicating a distinct write action. However, it could be more explicit about what 'write cache' entails (e.g., generate a cache file, update existing cache).

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like whether a file cache node must exist or if a frame range is required. It doesn't state exclusions or typical scenarios, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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