code_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that a write is optional and server-side, which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, overwrite semantics for an existing target path, whether generation occurs without target_path, or 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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the optional write clause. Nothing is wasted, though a semicolon joining two distinct modes is terse.

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 that can mutate the filesystem with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is thin. An agent cannot tell what is returned, whether existing files are overwritten, or how the model parameter affects behavior.

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 0% with 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It loosely covers spec, reference_path, and target_path (via 'optional server-side write') but leaves the 'model' parameter entirely unexplained and adds no format or constraint detail.

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 names a clear verb (generate) and its inputs (a spec and a reference file), plus the optional write behavior. It does not name or contrast against siblings bulk_read and status, but those tools are unrelated to code generation so differentiation is less critical.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or how it relates to the sibling tools. The phrase 'optional server-side write' hints at two modes but never states the condition that selects one over the other.

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