project_file_write

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the file is overwritten or appended, permissions needed, size limits, or effect on project state. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to provide adequate context.

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?

While the description is concise (single sentence), it is underspecified and does not provide the necessary details for an agent to use the tool effectively. Conciseness without informativeness is not beneficial.

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 existence of an output schema and three parameters with zero schema description coverage, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to mention return values, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., project must be open), or any other context an agent needs.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only repeats field names implicitly ('file_path', 'content') without clarifying semantics like path relative to project, content encoding, or the role of optional 'project_id'. The description adds no value beyond the schema field names.

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 action ('Write') and the resource ('a text file inside the project directory'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'project_file_read' and 'node_file_write', which operate on different resources.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'node_file_write' (for node filesystems) or other write tools. The description lacks explicit when/when-not advice, making it harder for an agent to choose correctly.

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