coding_write_code

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

The description discloses its workflow (reads, designs, writes, tests, returns results) but lacks details on side effects, destructive actions, permissions, or error handling. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and is adequate but incomplete.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main action, and efficiently covers the tool's purpose, process, and parameters without fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's complexity (end-to-end code change) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core workflow and return values. However, it lacks details on error handling, multiple file modifications, and differentiation from similar sibling tools.

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?

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates well. It explains each parameter's purpose, clarifies that 'brief' is required despite the schema not enforcing it, and adds context about the meaning of each argument.

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 it plans and implements a code change end-to-end, listing specific actions like reading files, writing code, running tests, and returning a diff summary. It distinguishes itself from many sibling tools by being comprehensive, but it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like coding_propose_changes.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as coding_propose_changes or coding_run_tests. It lacks explicit usage context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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