写文件（需确认）

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the critical behavior that confirm=true is required for disk writes, and that otherwise a preview is returned. This adds significant safety context. It does not detail return values on success or failure, but the key behavioral trait is covered.

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 short sentence that front-loads the most important information (the confirm gate). No wasted words; every part earns its place.

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 is simple with only three parameters and no output schema. The description clarifies the preview/write behavior, which is the main nuance. It does not state what is returned when confirm=true, but given the simplicity, this is a minor gap. Overall sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of the confirm parameter, which is the least obvious one (boolean controlling write vs preview). filePath and content are self-explanatory from their names, but the description does not elaborate on them. Partial compensation.

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 title '写文件（需确认）' clearly states the tool writes files, and the description specifies the conditional behavior (confirm=true writes to disk, otherwise preview). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like detectRepo and generateReadme, which serve different purposes.

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: set confirm=true to write, otherwise preview. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The purpose is clear, but guidance is only implicit.

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