goclaw_agent_files_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but fails to explain key traits: whether this operation overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves the agent with insufficient behavioral context for safe invocation.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 complexity of a file creation/update operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and output expectations, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in context with its siblings.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (agent_id, path, content) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool handles context files, which is minimal value. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('create or update') and the resource ('a context file for an agent'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'goclaw_agent_files_delete' or 'goclaw_agent_files_get' beyond the basic verb difference, missing explicit differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'goclaw_agent_files_delete' or 'goclaw_agent_files_get'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the agent must exist or if the file path has specific constraints, leaving usage unclear.

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