td_project_write

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility and meets it well. It discloses that output must not exist, that the tool will not overwrite user files, that the original file is required because not all .toe content is represented in the dump, and that unsupported changes are listed rather than approximated.

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 long but well structured, front-loading the core purpose and then using three clear bullet points for critical caveats. A small amount of redundancy exists around the no-overwrite and no-instance points, but every section earns its place for a tool with this much subtlety.

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 description is remarkably complete: it explains preconditions, what can be changed, what will not be written, how failures are reported, and that the built file may differ from the text. An output schema exists, so return-value details do not need to be repeated.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does: file must be the original source, text is the edited JSON dump, and output must not already exist. This adds meaningful constraints beyond the raw string type, though explicit path or format details are not given.

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 precise operation: writing an edited td_project_text dump back into a new .toe/.tox. It is clearly framed as the return leg of td_project_text, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like td_project_read or td_build.

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?

Provides clear context: use after editing a td_project_text dump, with no running instance, and only when the original file is still available. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use X instead', but the framing as the return leg makes the intended workflow unambiguous.

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