write_hitl

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the human-approval requirement, the two-phase call pattern, and that the second call needs the sessionToken. It does not explicitly state that no write occurs on the first call, but the approved:false step strongly implies a pre-approval staging behavior.

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 primary action and the approval requirement. The numbered flow is easy to follow, though calling it 'dos llamadas' while listing three steps (including question()) introduces a minor structural inconsistency.

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?

For a human-in-the-loop write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation flow, approval gate, and token handling. It does not describe the return value of the approved:true call or what happens if the user rejects, but the main steps an agent needs to complete a successful write are present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful workflow semantics beyond the schema by explaining the exact order of approved values and the role of sessionToken across the two calls. This helps an agent understand how the parameters interact in the full flow.

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 and resource: 'Crea o sobreescribe un archivo completo' (create or overwrite a complete file). The word 'completo' helps distinguish it from the sibling edit_hitl, which likely handles partial edits, making the tool's purpose clear and differentiated.

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 a clear, structured correct flow: first call with approved:false to receive instructions and a sessionToken, then use question() for approval, then call again with approved:true. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like edit_hitl or bash_hitl, but the context for when to use this tool is clearly implied by the full-file write behavior and the approval workflow.

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