Create or replace a project file

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds only the prerequisite context. It does not disclose behavior on missing parent directories or conflict handling, but with annotations covering safety, the bar is lower.

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?

Two sentences with no unnecessary words. The usage context is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. Ideal conciseness.

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 description covers core usage and prerequisites but lacks details on createParents, content constraints, return value, and error states. With 5 parameters and no output schema, more contextual information is needed for full completeness.

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 only 20% (project described). The description only adds semantics for expectedSha256, but does not explain path, content, createParents, or the format of expectedSha256. Low coverage forces description to compensate, but it only partially does so.

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 replaces files completely and mentions the prerequisite expectedSha256 from read_file. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_file, apply_patch, and replace_text by specifying when a complete replacement is appropriate.

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 explicit guidance on when to use it (complete replacement) and the prerequisite of expectedSha256 for existing files. It could be improved by explicitly mentioning alternatives like apply_patch for partial updates, but the context is clear enough.

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