write_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: writes are persisted as a git commit and pass through an ACL/secret guard. It stops short of stating overwrite semantics for an existing path, which would be the natural next detail for a destructive write.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and qualifiers in a compact parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though the telegraphic parenthetical borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

For a destructive 4-parameter write tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description omits too much: it never explains the parameters, whether an existing document is overwritten, or how expected_git_commit interacts with the git commit behavior. Annotations cover the safety signal but not the operational details.

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 coverage is 0% and none of the four parameters (path, content, commit_message, expected_git_commit) are explained in the description. The mention of 'git commit' does not clarify the expected_git_commit optimistic-concurrency parameter, so the description fails to compensate for the total absence of schema documentation.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Write a knowledge document') and the parenthetical identifies the mechanism (git commit) and the guardrails (ACL/secret guard). It is distinguishable from append_document by the write-vs-append framing, though it never names that sibling or propose_write explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus append_document or propose_write, nor any stated preconditions. The 'ACL/secret guard' hint implies writes may be rejected, but no condition for choosing this tool is given.

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