Write an arbitrary panel file

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

Annotations cover safety (destructive=true, readOnly=false). The description adds the critical behavioral fact that all site-tool validation is bypassed and enables a gating env var that can cause the server to refuse the call. That is genuinely beyond what annotations declare.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the capability and scope, then the safety gate. No wasted words and every clause 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?

A destructive file-write tool with no output schema and full schema coverage. The description supplies the risk profile, the bypass behavior, and the env-var gate – everything an agent needs before invoking it.

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%, so path, data, and encoding are already documented there. The description adds no syntax, path constraints, or encoding meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Write) plus resource (any file the panel user can write, including vhost and nginx configs). Explicitly distinguishes itself from the site_* siblings by noting it bypasses their validation. An agent can tell which tool applies without opening any schema.

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?

Names a concrete precondition (server refuses unless AAPANEL_ALLOW_DANGEROUS is set) and contrasts with the site tools, giving clear when-to-use context. It stops short of naming a specific fallback alternative or spelling out when-not to use it, so it isn't quite a 5.

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