iyke_scratchpad_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses idempotent create/replace, scope defaults, name uniqueness, and 1 MB cap, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or success/error responses.

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 sentences only, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage context, then parameter details. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, parameters, and constraints (1 MB). Lacks return value description and error conditions, but for a write operation, the provided info is largely sufficient.

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%, so description fully compensates. It explains scope defaults (project:<active_id>) and valid overrides ('workspace' or 'pkg:<id>'), name as a unique slug, and body size limit, adding meaning to all three 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 clearly states the tool creates or replaces a project-scoped Markdown scratchpad, with explicit use cases (plans, handoffs, working context). It distinguishes from siblings like read, append, and delete.

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 specifies when to use (for context that outlives a chat) and explains scope behavior, but does not explicitly exclude cases or compare with alternatives.

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