write_raster

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

No annotations provided, so description bears burden. It mentions side effects (writing file) and return dict, but lacks details on overwrite behavior, error handling, or required CRS alignment.

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?

One-line summary followed by Args block is clear and front-loaded. Each sentence adds value, though the Args section could be integrated for brevity.

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?

Covers purpose, parameters, and return format. Lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., file overwrite, dimension mismatch) but is adequate given the output schema exists for return details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's type and purpose (e.g., 'array: 2D or 3D list...', 'dtype: Optional data type...'). Adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Write a numpy array to a raster file using metadata from a reference raster', which is a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling raster tools (e.g., reclassify, reproject) by focusing on creating a new file from an array.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The purpose implies usage when you have an array and need a raster, but it does not mention alternatives or prerequisites like array shape matching reference raster.

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