fs_overwrite

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It does this well by stating that the original is backed up to trash first and that a recoverable copy remains in ~/.praxis/trash/. This goes beyond what the name or schema alone reveal.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core action and side-effect are front-loaded, and the comparison to fs_write is placed exactly where it helps decision-making.

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 only two straightforward parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, mutation behavior, recoverability, and the sibling relationship. It doesn't discuss error cases like missing files, but the phrase 'existing file' and the output schema make the definition adequate for correct 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%, so the description must compensate. It implies path refers to the existing file and content is the replacement text, and the wording 'existing file' adds a useful constraint. However, it never directly explains either parameter, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 names a specific verb and resource: overwrite an existing file. It also explicitly differentiates itself from fs_write, so an agent can distinguish this tool from its closest sibling without needing to inspect schemas.

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 frames when to prefer this tool by contrasting it with fs_write: this one replaces existing content but always keeps a recoverable trash copy. It doesn't explicitly say 'use this when you need a backup,' but the comparison gives clear contextual guidance.

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