json_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'write JSON' and gives no indication of side effects, overwrite behavior, file creation, server interaction, dry-run semantics, or response behavior. An agent cannot predict what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single clause adds almost no actionable information and does not earn its place because it only restates the tool's purpose in vague terms.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and multiple sibling write tools, the description is far too incomplete. It does not explain what to provide, what the tool will do, what side effects may occur, or when it should be selected. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing invocation guidance.

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 explain the parameters. It mentions none of them: 'data', 'path', 'server', and 'dry_run' are all undocumented in the description. The agent is left without any explanation of the required data shape, path semantics, server default, or dry-run behavior.

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 'Ghi JSON' translates to 'write JSON', which largely restates the tool name. The added phrase about server-to-server exchange format and contract F2 hints at a domain but does not specify what resource is written, whether it writes to a file or server, or how it differs from file_write, csv_write, or excel_write.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'contract F2' and 'server exchange' weakly implies a context, but there are no conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as file_write or csv_write.

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