write_po

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden; it states that the module is modified and that powrap formatting is applied, warning of a side effect beyond the entry update. It could add detail on overwrite semantics or permissions, but the core behavioral traits are 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?

The opening sentence is front-loaded and concise, but the description then spends many lines restating HTTP response details and examples that the output schema already covers. This redundancy keeps it from being as efficient as it could be.

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 two-parameter tool with a full input schema and output schema, the description plus schema provides enough to call it correctly: file path, entries, success indicator, and validation errors. A small ambiguity remains about whether unlisted existing entries are preserved, but it is not blocking.

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 file_path and entries with descriptions, and the description adds little beyond the schema. Per the coverage baseline, this is acceptable; no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 names a specific action ('Create or update') and resource ('PO file'), and adds the distinctive formatting side effect ('format it with powrap'). This clearly separates it from read-only siblings like read_po and find_fuzzy.

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 positions this as the mutation tool for PO files, so an agent knows to use it when writing entries, while sibling names indicate read-only alternatives. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the write/read split is obvious from context.

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