mindbase_atomic_write_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does so thoroughly by disclosing the snapshot path, the tmpwrite+rename mechanism, the appended log entry, and the 400-line cap with overflow routing to an auto-generated file.

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 compact: three sentences cover the core action, the atomic write steps, and the truncation behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information and there is no redundancy.

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?

The description is complete enough for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. It covers the destructive replacement, the backup snapshot, the transactional mechanism, the log side effect, and the line-limit boundary condition.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters fully, with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no extra semantics about the parameters; it focuses on the write process, which is appropriate given the schema already explains content and projectId.

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'), a specific target ('context.md'), and a defining trait ('atomically'). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools that append, update sections, or contribute content, and the resource path makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies the tool should be used whenever an agent needs to replace or write the full context.md body with atomic safety. It doesn't mention explicit alternatives or exclusions, but none are strictly necessary given the targeted nature of the operation.

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