remote_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. '整文件写入' implies whole-file replacement (thus destroying prior content), but it never states that existing content is overwritten, whether the file is created if absent, permission requirements, or atomicity. The remote_read tip hints at risk but does not disclose the write semantics.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a single actionable tip. No filler; appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose overwrite semantics and the remote_write vs remote_replace distinction. It covers purpose and one precondition but leaves the risky behavioral details unstated.

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 both parameters (path, content) are already documented. The description's '整文件' adds only a marginal hint that content must be complete file text, which is already conveyed by the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('整文件写入远端' = write entire file to remote) with a scope qualifier ('整文件') that implicitly separates it from remote_replace's partial-edit behavior. It lacks explicit sibling naming, but the whole-file scope is enough for an agent to distinguish it from remote_replace.

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 a workflow precondition — read large files with remote_read before modifying — which is useful but reactive. It never states when to choose remote_write over remote_replace, so the most important alternative-selection decision is left to inference.

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