ras_manifest_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: writes a JSON manifest, reports missing referenced files, and does not require HEC-RAS. It also details the manifest structure, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior or return value, which are minor gaps for a write tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by important usage and behavior details. No redundant wording; every sentence earns its place.

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 complex tool with 11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives invocation timing, manifest contents, error reporting, and a system requirement. It falls short only on return value and overwrite semantics, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining how parameters compose the manifest: files each with sha256, ras_run QA status, edits from ras_plan_set/ras_flow_set_hydrograph, tool_calls as {tool, args, ok}, and out_json as the write target. This enriches the schema's terse descriptions.

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 and resource ('Write a provenance manifest (JSON) for one modelling step') and enumerates the manifest contents (files with sha256, ras_run QA status, edits, tool calls, notes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ras_run or ras_results_summary, which focus on execution or analysis.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Call it at the end of a run so the run can be audited or re-compared later.' This gives concrete timing and intent. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the sibling list makes it clear this is the manifest-writing step, and the context is sufficient.

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