Write a Feature Studio

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

Annotations provide no readOnly or destructive hints, so the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses the key destructive behavior: 'The whole file is overwritten.' This goes beyond a generic write description by making the irreversible nature of the operation clear. It does not cover permissions, validation, or failure behavior, but the main risk is disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, and the important destructive consequence is front-loaded in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 simple write tool with four fully documented parameters and no nested objects or output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the operation, the resource, and the destructive consequence. A minor gap is not stating whether the Feature Studio must already exist or whether invalid FeatureScript is validated before overwriting.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional param-level meaning beyond reinforcing that contents replace the complete source. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Replace the FeatureScript source of a Feature Studio'. It also adds the crucial scope detail that the whole file is overwritten, distinguishing this write operation from related tools like get_feature_studio or create_feature_studio.

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 implies this tool is used when you want to overwrite an existing Feature Studio's source, and the sibling names (create_feature_studio, get_feature_studio) provide indirect contrast. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions such as the Feature Studio needing to already exist.

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