write_artifact

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions three modes but does not disclose side effects like overwriting existing files, creation of parent directories (default true), or any required permissions. Lacks details on behavior beyond mode enumeration.

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?

Description is a single concise sentence, but it is too brief for the complexity of the tool (5 parameters). It lacks structure or elaboration that would help an agent interpret it correctly.

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 complexity (5 params, no output schema) and low schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It omits return values, error handling, effects on the artifact system, and how to properly use parameters like project_root.

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 only 20% schema description coverage, the description adds no value to understanding parameters. It does not explain path, content, mode, create_parent, or project_root beyond the schema's own sparse descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool writes/appends/creates a PAIDEIA markdown artifact under the course root. The verb 'write' and resource 'artifact' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like read_artifact and list_artifacts.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. No mention of when to use write, append, or create modes, or prerequisites like project_root being set correctly.

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