write_class_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool writes to files (destructive), requires the IDE to be closed, and content must be latin1-compatible. It does not mention overwriting behavior or failure modes, but it is reasonably transparent for a write operation.

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, all relevant and front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition. Efficiently communicates essential 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description covers the main points: what it does, prerequisite (IDE closed), content constraint, and its place in the workflow (after read_class_source). It could mention overwriting behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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% (all 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds little beyond the schema: it reiterates that source must be latin1-compatible and implies header_source is optional. Since the schema already provides this, the description offers marginal value, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 writes the full source of a CLASS 2 class to its .st file (and optionally .h header). The verb 'write' and resource 'CLASS 2 class source' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_class_source (reading) and apply_project_changes (higher-level operations).

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 explicitly says to use this after read_class_source to apply code changes, and warns that the IDE must be closed, with a reference to close_class2 as a prerequisite. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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