write_full_buf

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses edit is in-memory, undoable, not written to disk until user saves, and creates buffer if missing. Could mention error handling but overall very transparent.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence provides value: purpose, behavior, usage guidance, parameter descriptions, and return value. No redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema and simple 2-param input, the description covers purpose, behavior, usage, parameters, and return structure ({total_lines}). Sufficiently complete for agent 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 0%, yet description explains 'file: path relative to Neovim's cwd (as shown in get_state buffers)' and 'content: the full new text for the buffer.' Adds essential context beyond schema types.

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?

Clearly states 'Replace the entire content of a Neovim buffer' with specific verb and resource. Differentiates from sibling by contrasting with find_and_replace_buf.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool (rewrite whole file) and when to use alternative (find_and_replace_buf for targeted edits). Provides clear context.

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