Write files into a project

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses the destructive behavior: 'Overwrites without asking', which is critical for an AI agent to know. However, it lacks details about return values, potential failures, or side effects like directory creation.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main purpose in the first sentence and adding a crucial caution in the second. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the schema thoroughly defines parameters and the description covers the key behavior (overwrite without asking), the tool is sufficiently specified. It lacks details on concurrency, limits (though schema has maxItems), or output, but these are not critical for a write tool.

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?

The description does not directly explain parameters (schema coverage 0%), but the schema itself already provides clear descriptions for path, content, and encoding. The phrase 'push components, tokens or assets' adds context but doesn't define the parameters, so the description adds minimal semantic value 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 clearly states 'Write or overwrite files' with a specific resource ('Claude Design project or design system'), giving a precise action and object. It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_file and pull_files by focusing on the write operation.

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 provides usage context: 'Use to push components, tokens or assets up from the repo', indicating the direction and content type. The warning 'read first if unsure' implies using a read tool when in doubt, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like read_file or pull_files.

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