Write chunks

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-open-world, so the write behavior is expected. The description adds that verification runs after boundaries are complete, which is behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It doesn't detail what verification entails, but the added value lifts it above baseline.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Write chunk markdown files') and then specifies the condition. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so a brief description might suffice. However, the description omits what the verification step does or what the tool returns. Given the lack of output schema, some additional context about return value or side effects would improve completeness.

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 100% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema. The parameter 'output_dir' is self-explanatory with its schema description. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'chunk markdown files', distinguishing it from siblings like split_document (which splits) and commit_boundary (which finalizes boundaries). The specific action and condition are unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'after boundaries are complete'. This helps the agent know when to invoke it, but it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since the sibling tools are distinct, the guidance is adequate but not exhaustive.

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