write_project_file

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

The description clearly discloses the deprecation status, which is a critical behavioral trait. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and 'DEPRECATED' is a strong signal that this is an older/legacy entry point. The implication is that the canonical tool should be preferred and may have more up-to-date behavior or parameters. This is adequate disclosure given the tool is intentionally a thin alias.

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 a single concise sentence that delivers maximum signaling value. 'DEPRECATED' is front-loaded and the canonical tool reference is unambiguous. For a pure alias/deprecation notice, this is appropriately minimal — nothing extraneous, though more param guidance would have been welcomed.

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 deprecated alias pointing to a fully specified canonical tool, the description is functionally adequate — the agent can route to project.files.write.v1 which presumably has a complete description. Output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, it doesn't convey the actual behavior (writing a file to a project), leaving the agent with only the canonical tool name to infer semantics. Given the complexity of the tool is low, this is mostly but not fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (path, content), the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. It doesn't explain what path and content should contain — though these are semantically straightforward for a file-writing tool. The description's entire value is the deprecation notice, not parameter documentation. For 0 params a baseline of 4 applies, but with 2 meaningful params and no help, a lower score is warranted.

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 identifies this as a deprecated alias for project.files.write.v1. The word 'DEPRECATED' signals the tool should not be preferred. The reference to the canonical tool is specific and helpful for an agent to route to the correct alternative. However, it doesn't explicitly state what the tool does (write a project file), instead relying on the referenced canonical tool name.

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 points to the correct tool to use instead (project.files.write.v1), giving clear routing guidance. The 'DEPRECATED' marker strongly signals to avoid this tool. However, it doesn't explain when someone might still want to use this alias, though for a deprecated alias, steering to the alternative is the primary guidance needed.

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