project_writeFile

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses behavior: creates parent directories, restricts certain content, and requires review. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, error handling, or access control.

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 highly concise: 4 sentences, no filler. Front-loaded with the main action, then constraints, then critical follow-up. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple 2-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential: action, constraints, and post-write review. It does not explain return values, but that is acceptable given the 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 coverage is 100% for both params. The description adds value beyond the schema: path is relative to project root, content cannot contain private keys. Baseline 3 is elevated due to extra clarification.

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 'Write content to a file in the Scaffold-ETH project' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like project_readFile and project_listFiles by focusing on writing, and includes constraints like path relative to root.

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 guidelines: when to use (writing files), constraints (no .env files, no private keys), and a mandatory post-write review for frontend files. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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