write_csv

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool writes data and returns a success/error message. It omits critical details like whether it overwrites existing files, creates directories, or handles encoding. This is inadequate for a mutation operation.

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: two sentences plus an Args/Returns block. It is front-loaded with the purpose and then structured parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value, though the Args/Returns format could be tightened.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters and no annotations. An output schema exists but is not detailed in the description. The description does not cover how the tool handles existing files, errors, or edge cases. For a data-writing tool, this is incomplete.

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 provides brief but helpful explanations for all three parameters: 'Path for the output CSV file', 'List of rows, each row is a list of values', and 'Column delimiter (default comma)'. While not detailed, it adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 'Write data to a CSV file' with a specific verb and resource. Among siblings like read_csv, csv_to_table, write_csv is uniquely positioned as the only tool for writing CSV files, making its purpose distinct.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., csv_to_excel, table_to_csv). It assumes the agent will infer usage from the tool name, which is acceptable but not explicit.

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