coding_write_code

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it writes code, runs tests, and returns a diff summary and test results. This is consistent with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and it tells the agent what side effects to expect, even if it doesn't detail reversibility or repository-wide impact.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a short argument list. No sentence is wasted, though the argument list could be slightly tighter given the message/brief overlap.

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 description covers the main workflow, parameters, and output shape, and an output schema exists for return values. Still, it lacks guidance on optional behavior (e.g., what happens if repo_path is omitted), and the ambiguous message/brief split may cause incorrect calls.

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 define all four parameters and gives some semantic meaning (e.g., repo_path is workspace-relative, run_tests controls test execution). However, the distinction between 'message' and 'brief' is blurry, and 'brief (required)' contradicts the schema, which lists no required parameters.

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 concrete end-to-end workflow — reads files, designs the change, writes code, runs tests — tied to a specific resource ('code change'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like coding_read_code, coding_propose_changes, and coding_run_tests.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Plan and implement a code change end-to-end' and the described workflow, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over alternatives such as coding_propose_changes, coding_chat, or coding_run_tests. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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