write_component_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions writing a file and marking a task as done, implying mutation, but fails to detail permissions, side effects, error handling, or what 'marks as done' entails. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely modifies state.

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 concise with two clear actions in a single sentence, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, it's overly brief given the tool's complexity, potentially sacrificing necessary detail for brevity.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and likely involves mutation (writing files and marking tasks), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameters, behavioral traits, or usage context, and while an output schema exists, the description doesn't provide enough information for safe and effective use.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names ('type', 'name', 'content'), failing to explain what these represent (e.g., file type, filename, content format). This leaves all three parameters undocumented, which is inadequate for a tool with multiple required inputs.

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 the tool 'writes the file and marks the task as done', which provides a clear verb ('writes') and resource ('file'), but it's vague about what kind of file or task is involved. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'save_database_plan' or 'save_test_plan', which might also involve writing files or marking tasks, leaving ambiguity in its specific purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after getting a task from 'get_next_pending_task'), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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