extension_write_dctl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the persistent effect of writing source into the LUT directory. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior by default (though schema covers this), potential side effects, or any permissions/restrictions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, efficiently conveying the purpose and mechanism.

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 simple three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description provides the essential location and purpose. It could be slightly more complete with an explicit note about installing DCTLs vs. other extension types, but overall it is sufficient.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond linking 'source' to code and 'LUT directory' to the install location; it does not clarify filename defaults or overwrite nuances beyond what schema already provides.

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 action ('Install a DCTL') and the mechanism ('writing its source into the LUT directory'), making it distinct from related tools like extension_read_dctl, extension_list_dctl, and extension_remove_dctl.

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 implies when to use the tool (when installing a DCTL from source), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, such as when to prefer extension_write_fuse or extension_write_script.

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