write_workspace_doc

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 one genuinely important side effect: editing GAME.md syncs the Project Bible. However, it omits whether this is a full overwrite versus an append/patch, whether a missing file is created, and what permissions or confirmations are required for a mutation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and the second sentence carries non-obvious side-effect information rather than filler. Slight tightening is possible but there is essentially no waste.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description does not do enough: it leaves the overwrite semantics, the `project` scoping, and the mutation's safety profile entirely undefined for an agent that must write files.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It gives useful examples for doc_name but says nothing about the `project` parameter (which has a 'default' value that is unexplained) or about whether `content` replaces or merges with existing file content.

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 pair (write/update) and resource (shared Markdown file in the project workspace), reinforced by concrete examples (GAME.md, ASSET_REQUIREMENTS.md). It is clearly distinct from read_workspace_doc, though the description never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the examples of which documents live in the workspace, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of when to prefer update_project_bible, add_asset_requirement, or other siblings for structured content. The agent must infer routing from the file-extension framing.

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