write_do_file

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states create/overwrite. It does not explain what happens to existing files, how the create_backup parameter affects behavior, or any side effects like permissions or path handling. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 concise sentence without extraneous filler. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is slightly terse and could benefit from including usage context, but as conciseness it is appropriate.

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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully contextual. It omits return behavior, backup semantics, error conditions, and file path expectations. Sibling context suggests this is a file operation, but the description alone does not provide enough for effective tool 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 100%, so the parameters are already documented with their descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 'do 파일 생성 또는 덮어쓰기' clearly states the action (create or overwrite) and the resource (do file). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_do_file and edit_do_file by explicitly mentioning overwriting, though it does not elaborate on when to use write versus edit.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or contrast with edit_do_file for partial modifications. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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