write_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation ('Write') but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't disclose whether this overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or has side effects like file creation. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, using a single phrase that efficiently conveys the core purpose and supported formats. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of a write operation with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, file system interactions, and return values, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation by an AI agent.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing supported formats, but it doesn't provide additional context on parameter usage, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Write') and resource ('document content'), specifying the supported formats (Excel, Word, PowerPoint, Text). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_document' by focusing on writing rather than reading. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_document_info' or 'run_python' in terms of document creation vs. metadata retrieval or execution.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file system access), when-not-to-use scenarios (e.g., for reading documents), or explicit alternatives among sibling tools like 'read_document' for reading or 'run_python' for other operations.

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