Write files into the project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that folders are created when missing and that multiple files can be written at once. However, it does not explain whether existing files get overwritten, whether there are any file-type restrictions, or what happens on partial failure (e.g., if one file write fails, are others rolled back?). The description is adequate but missing behavioral edge cases.

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?

Two short, functional sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action and the second adds a meaningful behavioral detail. Every word 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?

For a file-writing tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the basics: what it does, where it writes, and folder creation. However, it lacks information about overwrite behavior and error handling for a write operation, which could be significant for a tool that modifies project state. It is functional but could be more complete.

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 already fully describes both parameters (files: array of relPath/content objects relative to projectPath; projectPath: CAP project root). The description adds the folder-creation behavior but no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Writes one or more files into the given CAP project') plus a useful detail about creating missing folders. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like cap_validate and cap_lint (which are analysis tools) and cap_scaffold_entity (which generates entities). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other write-capable tools like ui5_scaffold_section.

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 implies usage context (writing files into a CAP project) and indicates the projectPath expectation. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives. The sibling context makes the intended use reasonably clear, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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