write_synopsis

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses important behaviors: overwrites existing synopsis, no snapshot taken, project must be closed, and returns a confirmation or error. This goes beyond minimal expectations and gives the agent full awareness of side effects.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, then lists prerequisites, side effects, args, and return value in a compact format. Every sentence adds value, no fluff or repetition.

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 two-parameter write tool, the description is complete. It covers the operation, prerequisites, side effects, parameters, and return value. It does not rely on an output schema or annotations, yet the agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the description clearly compensates by defining each parameter: 'identifier: Document title, path, or UUID' and 'synopsis: The synopsis text to write.' This fully explains what each parameter means, far exceeding the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Write the synopsis (index card text) for a document.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling read-only tools like get_synopsis by explicitly stating it writes/overwrites, and the return type is a confirmation message.

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?

Provides a clear, critical usage condition: 'The project must be CLOSED in Scrivener, otherwise this fails.' This gives the agent crucial context on when it can be invoked. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the write-vs-read distinction is implied by the tool name and sibling list, so a 4 is appropriate.

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