Set DAT content (whole)

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it refuses to write empty/whitespace-only text unless confirm_wipe is true, preventing silent data loss. This aligns with the destructiveHint annotation and discloses an important safety behavior.

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second contrasts with an alternative, and the third explains a critical edge case. No 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?

Given the annotations (destructiveHint, openWorldHint) and complete schema, the description covers the main use case, distinguishes from alternatives, and addresses the important wipe-safety detail. No further context needed for expected 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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of confirm_wipe and the 'empty/whitespace-only' edge case, enhancing understanding beyond the schema's boolean description.

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 tool overwrites a Text or Table DAT's entire .text content. It uses specific verbs ('Overwrite') and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'edit_dat_content' by contrasting full replacement vs. surgical find-and-replace.

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 advises using this tool to 'deploy a full script or template' and contrasts with 'edit_dat_content' for surgical edits. It also explains the condition for wiping content, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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