write_rewrite_artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the creation location but does not state whether an existing artifact is overwritten, what permissions are required, whether content is validated, or what the tool returns.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately concise, though the extreme brevity contributes to under-specification elsewhere rather than being a structural flaw itself.

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 five-parameter, required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. It omits what a rewrite artifact contains, how content and author are used, and how this tool relates to merge_rewrite.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all five parameters. It only indirectly explains 'repo' and 'type' through the path template, leaving 'project', 'content', and 'author' entirely unclarified.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Create a rewrite artifact.' It also gives the target path pattern, which clarifies scope. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools such as merge_rewrite, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like merge_rewrite or compile_wiki. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Create' and the artifact path, which is not sufficient for a five-parameter mutation tool.

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