write_server_cfg

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects itself; it does convey that this is a full-file overwrite via 'entire', which is the main destructive trait. However, it does not mention permissions, prerequisites (e.g., set_server_root), backup behavior, validation, or error handling.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with no filler. Every word contributes to meaning, and the redundancy is minimal.

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 destructive write tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is thin: it omits required setup (such as the server root having been set), safety warnings, and expected outcomes. An agent could call it without knowing whether the current config should be preserved or whether a server restart is needed.

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%, and the 'content' parameter already has a description ('Full content of the server.cfg file'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics; it restates the entire-file scope already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Write/Update') and a specific resource ('the entire SAMP server.cfg configuration file'), making the operation unmistakable. The word 'entire' distinguishes it from partial-config or command-level tools like rcon_command.

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?

No alternative tools are mentioned, and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The word 'entire' weakly implies this is for full-file replacement rather than single-setting changes, but the agent is left to infer that from sibling names.

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