textedit_write_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait: '(risk: mutating)' plus 'Replace the entire text', which tells the agent existing content is destroyed. However it omits whether the change is undoable, whether a document must already exist, and failure 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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the risk flag. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential mutation risk but leaves gaps: no preconditions about the frontmost document, no undo/reversibility note, and no error context.

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 single 'text' parameter is already documented as 'The new document content.' The description's 'entire text' phrasing clarifies that this value overwrites rather than appends, but adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('the entire text of the frontmost TextEdit document') with explicit scope. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling textedit_read_document purely from the description.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g., a document must be open/focused), and no mention of alternatives such as textedit_read_document. The only cue is the implicit read/write pairing with the sibling.

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