write_feature_doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'writes' but does not disclose whether it creates new or overwrites existing documents, required permissions, side effects, or error conditions. This lacks essential behavioral context.

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 is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise, but could be slightly more structured to include usage notes or behavioral details without adding much length.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and complex parameters, the description does not cover important aspects like return value, confirmation, error handling, or idempotency. It feels incomplete for a write operation that might have side effects.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 3 parameters, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds only the context of writing 'to the vault under a specific project', which is already implied by the project parameter description. Minimal added value.

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' and clearly identifies the resource ('feature document') and location ('vault under a specific project'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'write_bug' and 'list_features' by focusing on creating a feature doc.

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 usage for writing feature documents to a project, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'write_bug' or 'get_feature_doc'). No when-not-to-use or precondition information is given.

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