kirikiri_write_scenario_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Write' but does not reveal whether it overwrites existing files, requires a directory, what encoding defaults apply, or any side effects. This is insufficient 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. It communicates the core action efficiently.

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 write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions, the description is drastically under-specified. It lacks details on file format, line structure, encoding behavior, and side effects, making it inadequate for reliable use.

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%, and the description does not clarify the meaning of 'path', 'lines', or 'encoding'. It mentions 'scenario .txt lines' but does not explain the structure of the 'lines' array or how to specify the path. The description adds no value for parameter understanding.

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 states the specific verb 'Write' and resource 'KAGeXpress multilingual scenario .txt lines', clearly indicating a write operation for scenario text. It distinguishes from the sibling 'kirikiri_load_scenario_text' which reads scenario text. However, it doesn't mention the file path or encoding, relying on the schema for those details.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, relationships to read tools, or when not to use it. The description simply states the action without contextual usage instructions.

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