Overwrite a job-hunting campaign's profile.md with new markdown content by specifying the campaign name and content.
Overwrite the campaign profile.md with new markdown content
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | New profile markdown content | |
| campaign | Yes | Campaign name (e.g. "default") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Overwrite' usefully discloses that the file is fully replaced rather than appended, which is meaningful for a mutation tool. However it omits permissions, reversibility, and behavior when the campaign does not exist.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that names the action, target, and payload with zero filler.
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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what changes but not error cases or authorization. Adequate but leaves gaps an agent might need.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented as campaign name and new markdown content. The description adds only that the content replaces the existing profile, matching the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (overwrite) and resource (campaign profile.md) with the content type (markdown), which separates it from siblings like read_profile and update_config. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, but the resource 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?
No guidance on when to use this over siblings such as update_config or append_retro, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The overwrite framing implies a full-replace intent, but the agent must infer that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.