find_field_writes

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully informs about the tool's read-only nature by describing it as a query for write accesses. It does not mention side effects or destructive behavior, but that is implicit. The zero-based coordinate note adds transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose first, then usage, important note, distinction from sibling, and prerequisite. Every sentence adds value without 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?

For a query tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the output as 'List of locations where the field is modified.' It also mentions the prerequisite and coordinate system. Could specify output format but not critical.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing zero-based coordinates and stating the default for maxResults (100), which is not in the schema. This improves parameter 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 'Find all write accesses (mutations) to a field.' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'find_references' by specifying it returns only mutations, not all usages.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Position cursor on a field declaration or reference.' It contrasts with the sibling tool 'find_references' and notes the prerequisite 'Requires load_project to be called first.'

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