write_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the content gets a traceability comment prepended (feature, plan, date/time) and that the operation overwrites. However, it doesn't mention whether it requires specific permissions or whether overwrites are destructive/reversible—useful context not stated.

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?

Compact 3-sentence paragraph in Portuguese, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: what it does, the prerequisite, and the automatic behavior. Minor waste: 'Escreve/sobrescreve' is slightly redundant phrasing.

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?

With 5 required params, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but a present output schema, the description gives enough to use the tool safely (prerequisite, auto-comment). It could better explain what the output schema returns and the relationship between description param and the plan, but overall minimally complete for a mutation tool with a gating workflow.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it explains plan_id's semantic role (must be approved, scope must include rel_path) and how feature relates to the traceability comment. However, rel_path, content, and description semantics remain entirely delegated to the schema with no added meaning.

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?

Description clearly states it writes/overwrites a project file (specific verb+resource). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like read_file, but the write action is unambiguous and the sibling names make the differentiation reasonably clear.

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?

Establishes a clear prerequisite: a pre-approved plan_id (via propose_change + approve_change) whose scope must include rel_path. This explicitly tells the agent when it's valid to use this tool and what precondition must be satisfied, though it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when NOT to use it.

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