workspace_put_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses the ".." path restriction. It says nothing about overwrite semantics for an existing path, whether parent directories are created, what permissions or agent identity are required, or whether the write is reversible — all critical for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one hard constraint. There is no filler, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than discipline.

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?

A three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage needs considerably more explanation than this. An agent cannot tell from the definition whether the call overwrites, what it returns, or how to interpret `agent`.

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 description must compensate, and it only partially does: it constrains the `path` parameter against ".." but says nothing about `agent` (identity? attribution?) or `text` (raw content? encoding? size limits?). Two of three parameters remain semantically 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Write a shared workspace file") and gives concrete examples of what a file can be (capsule, note, deliverable), which is enough to distinguish this from read-side siblings like workspace_get_file. It does not, however, distinguish itself from workspace_put_context or workspace_update_capsule, which plausibly overlap.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool rather than workspace_update_capsule, workspace_put_context, or workspace_put_file's read counterparts. The only guidance is an implied constraint on the path value, not on tool selection.

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