write_part

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose that this replaces the entire part script and requires a specific `build(d)` + `Dims`/`VARIANTS` contract. It also states prerequisite tools, but it does not describe what happens to an existing script, whether it is recoverable, or any overwrite/versioning implications. The destructive nature is implied strongly by 'Replace the whole part script' but not fully elaborated.

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 three short sentences, front-loads the core action, then provides prerequisites and follow-up. Every sentence contributes without repetition or filler.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, it covers the core workflow, script contract, and adjacent tools well. Missing details about the `name` parameter and overwrite/recovery behavior keep it from being fully complete, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values.

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 for both parameters. It explains `code` in useful detail, including the required `build(d)` contract, but it never explains what the required `name` parameter represents or how it relates to the part being written. Half of the parameters remain semantically undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: replacing the whole part script with `code`. It clearly distinguishes this tool from `new_part`, which creates the part, and `build_part`, which is the next step after writing. An agent can identify the tool's core action without opening the 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?

The description gives explicit sequencing: call `new_part` first, call `read_guide` if needed, confirm dimensions with the user, write the script, then call `build_part`. It states prerequisites and the follow-up action, leaving little ambiguity about when this tool belongs in a workflow.

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