write_files

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds atomic behavior: 'if any path is invalid, none are written'. This is valuable beyond annotations, though doesn't detail what happens on partial success scenarios. No contradiction.

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?

Four sentences, each essential: purpose, use case, structure, atomicity. No fluff, well structured, and front-loaded.

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 2 params, no output schema, and good annotations, the description covers atomicity and use case. Might lack detail on error handling or return value, but for this complexity it's sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so description doesn't need much. It mentions 'path and content' per entry but adds no extra semantics beyond the schema's descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool writes multiple files in a single call, distinguishing itself from write_file by mentioning batching and use case (scaffolding, updating several files). Could be slightly more specific about 'project files' but still effective.

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?

Explicitly says 'faster for scaffolding a new project or updating several files at once', implying batch writing. Mentions atomicity condition but doesn't compare to alternatives like patch_file or delete_file, though sibling list includes write_file which is directly differentiated.

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