write_spec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that this tool is the sole output channel, writes a plan rather than code, and should be called after convergence. It does not explicitly state overwrite or repeat-call behavior, but the workflow context strongly implies a single final write.

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 two sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and every sentence adds useful guidance: what to write, when to write it, and what to do afterward. There is no fluff.

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 one simple parameter fully documented in the schema and the low complexity of the surrounding tool set, the description covers the tool's role, the right moment to call it, and the next step. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the input schema already covers it fully, including required content structure and markdown format. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, but with 100% schema coverage, that is acceptable.

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: 'Write the plan.' It further differentiates the tool from siblings by calling it 'the only way anything leaves this room' and 'the only file you can create,' so an agent can tell exactly what this tool is for.

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 explicit timing and sequencing: 'Call it once you have converged, then close_room.' It also tells the agent what not to do here — 'you have no file-writing tools and you are not here to implement anything' — which prevents misuse.

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