perch_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: this is a destructive wholesale overwrite of the pane's document. It omits everything else an agent would want — reversibility/undo, whether existing history is preserved, permission or session requirements, and return behavior.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, and the destructive scope ('entire') is front-loaded where an agent will see it first. Nothing to trim.

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?

For a 3-parameter, fully documented mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action but is thin on the two things the structured fields cannot supply: sibling selection guidance and behavioral/safety traits.

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 100%, so panes, settle, and content semantics are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or default-caveat information beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Replace') and resource ('an entire pane's document'), which is enough for an agent to know this is a full-document overwrite. It does not, however, name or contrast with the obvious siblings perch_edit/perch_patch/perch_copy_lines that also write content, so differentiation is only implicit.

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 word 'entire' implies the when-to-use condition (whole-document replacement rather than incremental editing), but no alternative is named and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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