Set DAT content (whole)

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: it refuses to write empty/whitespace-only text unless `confirm_wipe:true` is passed, and it requires TDMCP_BRIDGE_ALLOW_EXEC=1 for text writes. This exceeds what annotations provide and is crucial for safe operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds unique value: purpose, differentiation, usage, safety guard, and execution context. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is destructive and has environment dependencies, and the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, the safety mechanism, and required flags. With fully documented parameters and no output schema needed, this is complete for the agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly referencing the `confirm_wipe` safeguard and tying it to the destructive nature, which clarifies the parameter's significance beyond the schema. However, it doesn't add meaning for the other parameters, which are already well-documented.

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 'Overwrite a Text or Table DAT's entire `.text` with new content,' providing a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from `edit_dat_content` by contrasting whole replacement versus surgical find-and-replace, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly contrasts with `edit_dat_content` and states when to use this tool ('use it to deploy a full script or template'). This gives clear usage guidance and alternative identification, satisfying the when-to-use criterion.

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