Write buildtree.config.json

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

Annotations only supply idempotentHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and does contribute real behavior: the write is refused unless `overwrite` is true, and artifact paths must be exact (no globs). It does not cover auth requirements or what happens after a successful write.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the payload contract, then the guard condition. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 3-param tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the key nested semantics and the overwrite rule. It stops short of stating the return/error shape or required permissions, which matters given there is no output schema and only a thin idempotent annotation.

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 67%, and the description compensates by explaining the `builds` map semantics (platform name to shell command plus exact artifact path, no globs) and the meaning of `overwrite`. `dir` is left to the schema, which documents it adequately.

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 names a specific verb+resource (write buildtree.config.json) and immediately clarifies the shape of the `builds` payload and the overwrite-guard behavior. It is clearly distinct from siblings like buildtree_build or buildtree_login, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any of them.

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?

Usage is implied (you write a config that maps platforms to commands/artifacts) and the overwrite precondition is stated, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as running buildtree_detect_project first, and no named alternatives.

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