onelake_write

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only says 'write'. It does not disclose that overwrite defaults to true, how encoding/base64 is handled, or whether workspace/lakehouse selection has side effects.

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 compact sentence with no filler and is front-loaded with the action. It is efficient for its length, though it sacrifices needed detail for a 7-parameter tool.

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 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far from complete. An agent would not know the required target context, overwrite behavior, or parameter roles without opening the schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at content encoding via 'text or base64'. It provides no meaning for required parameters like lakehouse and path, nor for overwrite, workspace, or encoding defaults.

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 action ('Write') and a clear resource ('OneLake'), and it identifies the two supported content forms (text or base64). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like onelake_read and onelake_rm, though it does not mention path/lakehouse context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as onelake_read or onelake_create_shortcut. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'Write' and the tool name.

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