write_files_atomic

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

The description mentions 'atomic' and 'backup' but lacks detail on what atomicity entails (e.g., rollback on failure), behavior on errors, or permission requirements. No annotations are present to supplement.

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 a single concise sentence, but it packs vague terminology. It could be improved with structured segments for clarity while remaining brief.

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?

No output schema and 0% schema coverage leaves the description wholly inadequate for an agent to understand return values, error handling, or success states. The description is too minimal for the tool's complexity.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain the parameters. It hints at backup via 'with backup' but does not describe the file_operations array structure, operation enum values, or create_backup boolean's effect.

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 indicates it writes multiple files atomically with backup, distinguishing it from single-file or analysis siblings. The verb 'write' and resource 'multiple files' are specific.

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 like modify_file or batch_analyze. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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