fiche_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly mentions the 'overwrite' capability, which is a key destructive behavior. Yet it omits other important details such as required permissions, irreversibility, or response behavior, so the disclosure is only partial.

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 two sentences with the first sentence front-loading the action and resource, and the second providing a useful pointer to an alternative. It is free of redundant words and every clause serves a purpose.

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 description covers the core purpose and directs users away from the tool for validated knowledge, which is helpful. However, for a write tool with no annotations and minimal parameter guidance, it would benefit from explaining the nature of the content and the implications of overwriting. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

The input schema provides only type information for 'slug' and 'content' with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain these parameters further. While the names are somewhat self-explanatory, no context is given for content format, slug uniqueness, or overwrite semantics, so the description adds little value beyond the 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 tool's function with specific verbs 'create' and 'overwrite' targeting the 'fiche' resource. The note 'Prefer case_promote for validated knowledge' distinguishes it from a sibling tool by indicating when a different tool is more appropriate.

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 guidance to prefer 'case_promote' for validated knowledge, effectively stating a when-not-to-use condition and naming an alternative. However, it does not elaborate on specific scenarios where 'fiche_write' is the right choice, leaving some room for interpretation.

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