loop_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Write ... file', which is generic and adds no detail about overwriting behavior, file path resolution (wave path vs .sli path), or the need for prior loop_read data. The WaveLoopManager mention gives a slight hint but doesn't explain side effects.

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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the core action and resource. There is no redundancy or extraneous information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 nested objects (links with condition fields, labels) and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It doesn't explain the relationship between 'info', 'links', and 'labels', nor the alternative path semantics (wave path writes FileName.sli). An agent would need to fully inspect the schema and possibly sibling tools to understand correct usage.

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 50% (path and info have descriptions, links and labels have nested property descriptions but no array-level description). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the phrase 'loop/link/label', which loosely maps to links and labels but doesn't explain the 'info' parameter or the path nuances. It does not compensate for the partially covered schema.

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 states the verb 'Write' and the resource '.sli loop/link/label file', identifying the tool as a writer for Kirikiri WaveLoopManager data. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'loop_read' by being the write counterpart, though it doesn't explicitly reference it.

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 vs alternatives. There is no mention of pairing with loop_read, prerequisites like having prior loop data, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other write/pack tools. The context must be inferred entirely from the name and schema.

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