emacs_org_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey a destructive overwrite via 'replace', but it omits critical side effects: whether the buffer must already exist, whether unsaved changes are lost, whether saving is required for persistence, and what the tool 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded phrase with no filler. It could be slightly clearer by separating 'write' and 'replace' or adding a sentence of context, but it is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

Despite a fully described parameter schema, the definition lacks annotations, an output schema, and any behavioral or usage context. For a destructive mutation tool surrounded by many similar Emacs siblings, the one-line description leaves too much for the agent to infer about side effects and correct selection.

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 baseline applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already documents buffer, content, and save adequately.

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 uses a specific verb ('Write/replace') and names the resource ('an org buffer'), making the core operation clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling emacs_buffer_write, but the 'org' qualifier narrows the target sufficiently.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to choose emacs_org_write over emacs_buffer_write, emacs_org_heading_add, or other buffer/org tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as the buffer needing to already exist.

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