write_doc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses non-clobbering default behavior, that appends are dated sections, and that overwrite=True replaces the entire file. It stops short of stating permissions, failure modes, or write durability guarantees, but the mutation semantics are unusually clear.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then routing rules, then args. Every sentence carries information, though 'Hard tech facts belong here' slightly restates the opening line and the args block repeats details that could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a 4-parameter write tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description supplies the action, the routing rules, the mutation semantics, and all four parameter meanings — nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 fully and does: name is explained with three concrete slug examples, content notes markdown and full-replacement behavior under overwrite, category enumerates all five allowed values, and overwrite states its default and effect.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Append a durable technical fact') and immediately scopes it with concrete examples (API spec, stack rule, model capability, platform note). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_docs, get_doc, and delete_doc, which are either named or implied by the read/delete framing.

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?

Explicitly routes content: hard tech facts here, user prefs and project fluid facts to agents-memory, and wrong/duplicate/yanked sheets to delete_doc. It even handles the subtle case of an old-but-still-true model, which is exactly the kind of when-not guidance that prevents misrouting.

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