fast_large_write_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It lists features (streaming, retry, backup, verification) but does not detail failure modes, performance impact, or side effects like backup creation. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not thorough; missing specifics beyond feature names.

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 a single sentence that effectively conveys the tool's purpose and key features. Every word is meaningful, no redundancy. It is front-loaded and concise.

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?

Given 10 parameters, many siblings, and no output schema, the description lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus fast_write_file, and does not mention limitations or prerequisites. It feels incomplete for a tool with such complexity and sibling 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%, so baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining that parameters like chunk_size, retry_attempts, and verify_write relate to the claimed features (streaming, retry, verification). This helps the agent understand parameter purpose beyond schema descriptions.

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 this tool writes large files reliably, mentioning specific features (streaming, retry, backup, verification). This distinguishes it from siblings like fast_write_file, which likely lacks these capabilities. The verb 'writes' and resource 'large files' are specific.

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 for large files needing reliability, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like fast_write_file or provide exclusions. Contextually, the feature list suggests it's for demanding scenarios, but no direct guidance is given.

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