write_user_config

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

Without annotations, the description explains the merging behavior but lacks details on side effects, permissions, validation, or return values. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.

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 two sentences plus an arg list, front-loaded with the action and resource. No redundant information.

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 purpose and merging behavior. It does not address error handling or validation but is adequate given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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 0% description coverage, so the parameter description adds value by stating that yaml_content should be a complete YAML string from the wizard. It could be improved with structural requirements.

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 verb 'Write' and the resource 'user-config.yaml', and specifies it is the full config produced by the wizard. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_config and write_user_preferences.

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 indicates the tool is for writing the full config produced by the first-run wizard and mentions merging behavior to preserve contexts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.

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