pv_write_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does state the conditional execution based on the ALLOW verdict, which is important, but it omits other critical behavioral details: whether the write overwrites existing content, handles directories, or returns any result. The description is too thin for a mutating operation with no annotation safety net.

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 sentence that immediately states the core action and then the critical constraint. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is front-loaded with the essential purpose before the gating note. It is appropriately concise without losing necessary information.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description omits how the ALLOW verdict is obtained (e.g., via pv_decide), what happens if the verdict is not ALLOW, and any post-conditions. For a write operation that depends on a prior decision, an agent lacks sufficient context to invoke it correctly in a workflow.

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% with descriptions for both path and content, so the schema already documents parameters adequately. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the gating condition, which is not parameter-specific. Per the baseline rule, a 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 clearly states the action 'Write content to a file' and the gating condition 'gated by PrivateVault' and 'Only happens if the verdict is ALLOW.' This is specific and distinct from the sibling tools (execute, HTTP request, decide, blocked). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it slightly misses the highest bar for differentiation.

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 implies that the tool should be used only when a PrivateVault verdict of ALLOW has been obtained, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings like pv_decide or pv_blocked. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving the agent to infer the correct usage context.

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