write_pack

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

With no annotations, the description adds a key behavioral detail—it validates before writing and refuses invalid packs. However, it omits other behaviors like overwrite semantics or directory creation, leaving significant transparency gaps.

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 concise sentences front-load the primary action and resource, with no redundant words. The file list adds specificity without verbosity.

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?

With 9 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, this short description is insufficient for correct invocation. It covers purpose and validation behavior, but lacks parameter semantics and edge-case details needed for a tool with this 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 9 input parameters. It indirectly hints at background.txt and labels.json corresponding to optional params, but does not clarify pack, questions, overwrite, or others, providing minimal assistance.

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 states a specific action ('Write a pack to a directory') and specifies the output files (brief.json, paraphrases.json, optionally background.txt and labels.json), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like read_pack and validate_pack.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_pack or read_pack. The validation behavior is mentioned, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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