write_project_file

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description adds limited behavioral context. It does not elaborate on side effects, directory creation, or error states. The mode parameter is not explained, but the overall mutation intent is clear.

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 sentence with no extraneous words. However, it omits necessary parameter details, making it too terse for the tool's complexity. Concise but incomplete.

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 destructive nature (destructiveHint true), lack of output schema, and four parameters with zero description, the description fails to provide sufficient context for safe and correct usage. It does not cover return values, error conditions, or behavior beyond the basic file write.

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%, yet the description adds no information about parameters. The meanings of project_dir, relative_path, content, and mode (especially the default 'upsert') are left entirely to the agent, making the tool hard to invoke without outside knowledge.

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 the tool writes files within a configured mod project workspace. It distinguishes from sibling tools like scaffold_project (create project structure) and build_project (compile), but does not explicitly contrast them or detail the scope of file writing.

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 indicate when to prefer this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. Sibling tools are listed but not compared.

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