Write WC3 object data

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the write-and-save behavior, default output path, and overwrite capability. It does not detail error conditions or side effects (e.g., file locking), but the core behavior is clear.

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 sentences, no filler. The key information (purpose, data shape requirement, output behavior) is front-loaded and each sentence contributes directly to understanding.

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 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool writes, the required data format, and output location. It does not mention return values or error cases, but for a write tool completeness is high.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining that data must match the shape from wc3_read_objects and clarifies the outPath default and overwrite behavior, exceeding the schema's static definitions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('object-data table') with clear action ('back into the map and save'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like wc3_read_objects and wc3_write_script by specifying the data domain and the required shape.

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 advises to pass the same shape returned by wc3_read_objects, implying a read-modify-write workflow. It also explains default outPath behavior. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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