Spec format for bw_write

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-open-world and non-destructive; the description adds session-stable caching semantics and the shape of the returned spec, which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of stating anything about cost, auth, or size of the returned spec.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return value and followed by the call-frequency rule. No filler or restatement of the name or title.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return value, and it does so concretely (fields, types, defaults, rules, example). Combined with the per-type/per-action scoping rule, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and at the right time.

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 50%: the type enum is richly documented in the schema, while action (create/update) has no schema description. The description only notes that the spec varies by action, without explaining what differs between a create spec and an update spec, so it does not fully compensate for the gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Return) and a specific resource (the spec format bw_write expects for one object type and action), then enumerates what the payload contains: allowed fields, data types, defaults, rules, minimal example. This is clearly distinguishable from the read/search/system 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Call it once per type before the first bw_write of that type') and an explicit anti-pattern ('the result does not change during a session', i.e. do not re-fetch). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered without inference.

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