opspilot_write_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the write requires approval and catalog-allowlisting, which is useful, but it does not explain whether this is an asynchronous request, how approval is obtained, whether content overwrites or appends, or any permissions/side effects. The behavioral model remains largely opaque.

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 only one sentence and contains no fluff, which is structurally efficient. However, it is so terse that it omits substantial context, so it is concise but under-specified rather than optimally balanced.

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 mutation tool with three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It lacks approval workflow details, return values, error conditions, and any differentiation from sibling tools. The single qualifier 'approved' and 'catalog-allowlisted' does not meaningfully complete the picture.

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 needed to explain the parameters but does not mention host_alias, path, or content at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but no constraints, formats, or relationships are provided, leaving the agent to guess.

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 identifies the tool as writing to a remote file and adds the important qualifier that the write must be approved and the file must be catalog-allowlisted. It distinguishes itself from read/upload siblings by emphasizing the approval requirement, though it could more explicitly contrast with opspilot_upload_file.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like opspilot_upload_file or opspilot_read_file. The phrase 'approved write' implies a specific approval context, but there is no clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use or prerequisite information.

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