write

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals core behaviors—create, overwrite, compile, push—and warns that overwriting occurs, which is important. However, it omits details about compile/push side effects, failure modes, permissions, or reversibility, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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-loaded with the core action, and every clause contributes useful guidance. It is appropriately concise and well 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?

The tool is complex (write + compile + push), has four parameters with zero schema description coverage, and no annotations. The description covers purpose and key usage but fails to explain message/project semantics, compile/push behavior, or prerequisites, leaving an agent under-equipped for reliable invocation.

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 the description must compensate, but it adds almost no parameter-level meaning. 'Path' and 'content' are somewhat implied by 'Create or overwrite a file,' but 'message' and 'project' are left entirely unexplained. The agent cannot infer the purpose or format of these parameters from the description.

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 states a specific action ('Create or overwrite a file') with clear resource scope and adds side effects ('then compile and push'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling edit() tool by directing users to prefer edit for changes to an existing document.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'For new documents and whole-file rewrites' and directly names the alternative tool: 'prefer edit() for changes to an existing document.' This clearly tells an agent when to select write over its closest sibling.

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