write

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by detailing overwrite behavior, implicit folder creation, the return payload (resolved id and created/replaced), the 1 MB content limit, and exact retention durations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four tight sentences, no filler. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently covers destructive behavior, path creation, size limits, and retention in a logical order.

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 the tool's complexity, the annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, destructive behavior, constraints, return values, and retention options. An agent has enough to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful meaning: retention options are expanded with concrete durations (e.g., 'session/today means 24 hours'), and content is given a size constraint. Tags and title are self-explanatory and already well-described in the schema.

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?

Opens with 'Create or replace a topic' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'edit' tool ('use edit for targeted changes') and clearly conveys the overwrite behavior.

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?

Explicitly directs users to 'edit' for targeted changes, which is a clear when-not-to-use alternative. It also gives practical guidance on splitting large content, notes implicit parent folder creation, and clarifies retention semantics.

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