gemini_write

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and "write prose" does not contradict it (it generates text, it does not mutate data). The description adds genuinely useful behavior: output is derived from facts that must be independently verified before use. It does not mention that calls are non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false), so repeated calls may yield different prose, nor does it describe the response shape.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core purpose and the batching rule come first. The closing sentence is cryptic ("Codex" is an unexplained external reference) and spends a line on workflow advice rather than tool behavior.

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 5-parameter generative tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition is too thin: an agent cannot know what style/language/instruction do or why max_attempts is pinned to 1. Only the purpose and a batching hint are conveyed.

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?

All 5 parameters have 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: style, language (defaulting to zh-CN), instruction, and max_attempts (const 1) are never mentioned. "From authoritative facts" only loosely hints that `content` should be facts rather than prose, leaving the four optional parameters completely opaque.

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?

"Write prose from authoritative facts" gives a specific verb (write prose) plus a source constraint (authoritative facts), which separates it from gemini_polish and gemini_rewrite in spirit. However, it never explicitly names those siblings or states what a "writing unit" is, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

"One call per writing unit" is a real usage constraint, and "Codex must check facts before final use" implies a verification workflow. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to gemini_polish, gemini_rewrite, or gemini_review, so the agent must guess which writing tool to pick.

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