mod_file_write

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds value by stating atomicity and conditional write via expected SHA-256. This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail failure modes or side effects like overwriting.

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, concise but lacking detail. It is front-loaded with the key action, yet essential information is omitted, making it under-specified rather than optimally 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?

For a destructive write tool with multiple required parameters and an output schema not shown, the description is incomplete. It does not address overwriting behavior, path creation, or response details, leaving gaps despite available annotations.

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%, and the description only mentions 'expected SHA-256' but does not explain the other parameters (mod_name, path, content). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 the action ('Atomically write a UTF-8 mod file') and the optional SHA-256 requirement, matching the tool name 'mod_file_write'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'mod_file_read' and 'mod_file_list', but could be more specific about what constitutes a 'mod 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no when-not-to-use scenarios. The description is purely functional without contextual usage advice.

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