colab_fs_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does provide a non-obvious behavioral caveat about append retries not being idempotent and advising a stat before retry. However, it omits other relevant traits like atomicity details (though schema covers replace/append) and does not mention permission requirements or failure behavior.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The key action is front-loaded, and the retry warning is an efficient addition that 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?

Given the moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but not fully complete. It provides a useful retry caution, yet lacks usage guidance and fails to mention what happens on success/failure, leaving the agent to infer from schema and sibling context.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema; 'small chunk' hints at size limits, but the schema already states the 1,000,000-byte cap for data_base64.

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 action ('Write') and resource ('a small chunk'), clearly indicating a file write operation. It distinguishes from siblings like colab_fs_read and colab_fs_list by focusing on writing, though 'chunk' is slightly vague and could imply partial writes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as colab_upload or colab_fs_move. The retry warning implies a write scenario, but there is no mention of preferred use cases or exclusions.

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