PAIDEIA__write_artifact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lacks information about side effects (e.g., whether existing files are overwritten), permissions needed, or behavioral details like the effect of the 'mode' parameter. The description only hints at the action broadly.

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 short (two sentences) and avoids fluff, but the second sentence largely restates the first. It could be more informative while remaining concise.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, error scenarios, or how parameters interact. The agent would lack critical context for correct usage.

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 only 20% (only 'project_root' has a description). The tool description adds no additional meaning to parameters like 'path', 'content', 'mode', or 'create_parent'. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of clarity.

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 clearly states the verb 'Write/append/create' and the resource 'PAIDEIA markdown artifact' with location 'under the course root'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'write_artifact' (without prefix), which might cause confusion.

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 only mentions to use this exact name when Alt searches, which is not a meaningful usage guideline. It neither specifies when to use this tool nor contrasts it with alternatives like 'write_artifact' or 'PAIDEIA__read_artifact'.

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