find_field_writes

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

With no annotations, the description explains important behaviors: zero-based coordinates, output is a list of modification locations, and the prerequisite. Could mention if it searches across files or just current project, but covers key traits.

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?

Concise 7-line description; front-loaded with purpose, then usage, output, coordinate system, sibling distinction, and prerequisite. No redundant sentences.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, it describes the output (list of locations) and prerequisites. Could be more explicit about scope (e.g., entire project) and performance, but overall complete enough for the task.

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 description adds no new parameter meaning beyond the schema. The mention of zero-based coordinates is also in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Find all write accesses (mutations) to a field' with specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'find_references' by noting it returns only modification locations.

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?

Provides usage context ('Position cursor on a field declaration or reference'), mentions prerequisite ('Requires load_project to be called first'), and contrasts with 'find_references'. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but the sibling contrast gives good guidance.

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