write_workspace_text

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the optimistic-concurrency requirement (current SHA-256 for existing files) and the output behavior (a reviewable diff), both of which an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the conditional SHA requirement placed before the return-value note. Every sentence carries information.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential gaps: concurrency control, return value, and destructive nature. It is slightly thin on path conventions and failure modes, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by explaining the conditional role of the SHA-256 value, but it never names expected_sha256, and it says nothing about path semantics (workspace-relative? file creation?) or the text payload. Two of three parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb pair (create/edit) and the resource (source or manifests inside the workbench), which is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from read_workspace_text. It stops short of explicitly naming the read counterpart or the scope boundary of what counts as a 'source or manifest'.

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 gives one real usage rule — existing files require the current SHA-256 — which implies when the third parameter is needed. However it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus alternatives, and no preconditions such as required permissions or whether new directories are created.

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