unclick_workspace_write

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

Annotations already flag a write with destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds genuinely new context — superuser/God-only authorization, the absence of any delete path, and the default refusal behavior on existing files. It omits the 500KB content ceiling (left to the schema) and what the call returns.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the privilege gate plus the resource/scope are front-loaded ahead of the overwrite caveat.

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 4-parameter write tool with no output schema, the definition covers authorization, scope, mutation semantics and the one risky flag. The only missing piece is the return value (e.g. resulting path or confirmation), which is minor.

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 area, content, relative_path and overwrite are all already documented. The description's only parameter-level addition is the overwrite usage rule, which largely restates the schema's 'default false: an existing file is refused'.

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 (create) and resource (UTF-8 text file) plus the exact location (shared UnClick Dropbox workspace), and scopes it to the two areas defined in the schema. This clearly separates it from the read/list siblings unclick_workspace_read and unclick_workspace_list.

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?

Gives a concrete conditional rule for the overwrite flag ('only to replace an existing file') and rules out a class of intent by noting no delete operation exists. It does not explicitly point at the read/list siblings, so it stops short of full when-to-use routing.

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