vcv_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that validation happens first, that overwrites are refused unless overwrite=true, and that keep_assets_from preserves asset files. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare schema.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the most important safeguards (validation, overwrite refusal) are front-loaded. The keep_assets_from usage note earns its place by providing crucial guidance.

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 4-parameter write tool with no annotations, the description covers validation, overwrite policy, and asset preservation. It does not mention failure behavior or output format, but an output schema exists and the core calling contract is well specified.

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 compensate. It does: 'patch' is explained as a full patch.json dict, 'overwrite' is tied to refusal behavior, and 'keep_assets_from' is explained as preserving asset files. Only 'path' is left implicit, but that is fairly self-evident from the file-write context.

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 a specific action: writing a full patch.json dict to a .vcv file. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vcv_read, vcv_validate, and vcv_library_search, and gives a clear sense of the resource involved.

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 gives explicit guidance for a key case: using keep_assets_from when saving an edited copy. It also notes overwrite behavior. It does not explicitly contrast with vcv_create, but the write/validate framing implies the appropriate scenarios clearly enough.

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