write_free_doc

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses important behaviors: it requires a prior skill run and rejects direct calls without it, and it instructs the agent to avoid resubmitting when a task is queued/running and instead return the task id. These are non-obvious behavioral traits that the annotations do not convey. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the prerequisite and an important operational warning. Every sentence carries meaningful information and there is no redundancy or padding. It is concise yet dense with necessary guidance.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and low parameter description coverage, the description provides the core purpose and critical usage caveats but does not explain success return values or the full parameter set. It mentions returning a task id only for queued/running cases, not what a successful persist returns. It also leaves parameter meanings mostly unexplained, making the description incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 17%, and the description itself does not explain any of the parameters. While 'Markdown brief' hints at the markdown parameter, there is no explanation of file_name, title, task, model_option_id, or selectedAssetIds. The schema only gives descriptive text for model_option_id ('Optional model option id supplied by the UGCmind runtime') and selectedAssetIds items ('A UGCmind project asset id...'), but the tool description adds no semantics for these fields. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Persist a Markdown brief or report as a UGCmind project document asset.' It uses a specific verb ('Persist') and resource ('Markdown brief or report'), and the scope ('UGCmind project document asset') distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_file_by_url or read_project_asset. Even without naming alternatives, the write-and-persist purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit prerequisite: 'Call run_skill first' and warns that 'this tool rejects direct calls without the active skill grant/run descriptor.' It also provides handling guidance for async results: 'If the result is queued or running, do not submit it again; return the task id and stop the turn.' This is clear context for when and how to use the tool, though it does not explicitly list alternative tools for comparison.

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