pandaone_write

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real value beyond that: missing target files are treated as creation (action=create), content becomes mandatory, and the extension must be in a protected set. It still omits prerequisites such as locking and any audit/auth requirements, so not a 5.

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?

One dense but well-ordered sentence group: purpose first, then required fields, then the parameter modes, ending with the create-on-missing edge case. Every clause carries information with no padding.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers required fields, both content modes, and the create case, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of describing return behavior or audit/permission side effects, leaving a modest gap.

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 already 90%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds combinatorial meaning the schema does not: which parameters belong to the text path vs the binary path and that content is required in the create case. It does not explain root/default or minLength constraints, which keeps it at 4.

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+resource combination: an audited file write (审计写入) tagged as a core command, which separates it from pandaone_log/pandaone_status style siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it stays a 4 rather than a 5.

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 does give mode-selection guidance: use --old/--new or --content for text, --from-file/--content-base64 for binary, and it notes the create-on-missing case. However, it never says when to choose pandaone_write over pandaone_log or another sibling, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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