write_project_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions creating parent directories, but this is also in the schema. It does not disclose whether the tool overwrites existing files, whether it requires special permissions, or any side effects beyond the write itself. This is a significant gap for a potentially destructive operation.

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 front-loaded, with the core action stated first ('Write content to a file in the project'). Each sentence adds essential information: the action, a key behavior (creating parent directories), and a usage hint. No filler or redundancy.

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 has three parameters fully described in the schema, the description provides enough to understand the main purpose and basic usage. However, as a mutating tool without annotations, it lacks critical information about overwriting behavior and error handling. The lack of an output schema means return values are unexplained, but this is less critical for a write operation.

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 already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (file_path, content, create_dirs), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any new parameter-level details; it merely echoes the create_dirs behavior that is already documented 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 clearly states the tool writes content to a project file, which is a specific verb+resource pair. The phrase 'Use for code modifications' helps differentiate it from siblings like read_project_file and list_project_files, which serve different purposes.

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 a clear usage context ('Use for code modifications'), indicating when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where the tool should not be used, missing an explicit when-not-to-use clause.

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