Write Arma Reforger Project File

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent hints. The description adds atomicity and SHA-256 concurrency protection, but does not elaborate on approval requirements, error scenarios, or failure behavior. Adds some value beyond annotations but incomplete.

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 (EN and DE), front-loading key functionality. While bilingual content may be redundant for an AI agent, it does not waste words and is efficiently structured.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and write operation with destructive hint, the description should cover success/failure indicators, preview behavior, and atomic write guarantees. It only partially addresses these, leaving gaps in completeness for a complex 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'SHA-256' and 'approved text resource', partially explaining expectedSha256 and content, but does not describe dryRun, project, createDirectories, or path. Minimal addition beyond bare 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 'Preview or atomically write an approved text resource inside an addon', specifying the verb (preview/write) and resource (text resource). It distinguishes from sibling 'read_project_file' as a 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 implies usage for writing or previewing a file but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like 'read_project_file' or when not to use. No explicit guidance on preview vs write choice.

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