guard_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is evaluation-only and does not perform writes, lists the checks performed, and mentions it returns allowed/blocked with reasons. All key behavioral aspects are transparently communicated.

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 two sentences with no superfluous information. It first states the purpose and checks, then clarifies the evaluation-only nature. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the tool's function, inputs, and output ('Returns allowed/blocked with reasons') adequately for a simple check tool. Minor omission: it does not describe error handling or the exact return structure, but given the lack of output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for effective agent use.

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 100%, so the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how the parameters (entity_id, min_confidence, require_no_conflicts) are used in the evaluation logic. It contextualizes the parameters within the safety check process, improving agent understanding.

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 is an 'Evaluation-only pre-write safety check' and lists specific checks (AnchorID existence, confidence threshold, conflicts, canonical links). It explicitly distinguishes from write operations by stating it does NOT perform any write, and the sibling tool guard_write_batch implies batch usage. This aligns with a specific verb-resource pair and differentiates from siblings.

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 explains when to use the tool (before a write) and that the caller decides whether to proceed. It implies that guard_write_batch is for batch use, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusion statements.

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