Write change document

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), the description discloses the default replace behavior, the append option, the exact file path pattern, and the return value (workspace-relative path and existing stage documents). This adds meaningful behavioral context that annotations do not provide, such as the overwrite semantics and the location convention. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the append/replace behavior, and the third gives the location and return value. Each sentence earns its place and information is front-loaded.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema) and available annotations, the description covers the key operational details: purpose, overwrite semantics, file path, and return value. It does not explicitly mention the active change default or the clean error for unknown changeId, but those are documented in the input schema, so the description is adequately complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing how parameters map to the file path (<workspace>/.workspace-mcp/changes/<id>/<stage>.md) and reinforcing the append behavior. This goes beyond the schema's per-property descriptions by illustrating the relationships between workspace, changeId, and stage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Write one stage document of a change: proposal, spec, design or notes.' It names the four stage types and clarifies this is for change documents, distinguishing it from generic file tools like write_file or edit_file. The first sentence alone fully conveys the tool's unique purpose.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it writes change stage documents, can be written in any order, and on demand. It explains the replace/append options but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The purpose is narrow enough that usage is clear, but explicit sibling differentiation would push this to 5.

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