karea_set_markdown

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

The description discloses that the tool overwrites any existing content, which is a critical behavioral trait. It also mentions that passing an empty string clears the content. No annotations are provided, but the description adequately covers the destructive nature.

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, starting with the primary action and overwrite behavior, followed by use case categories, and ending with best practice advice. Every sentence serves a purpose 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and usage patterns well. It might lack details on return values or error handling, but for a write tool, the coverage is largely sufficient.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining that the markdown parameter accepts the full content and that an empty string clears it, going beyond the schema's description.

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 the tool writes markdown documents for tasks and overwrites existing content. It distinguishes from siblings like karea_get_markdown (read) and karea_edit_note (edits notes). The specific use cases further clarify its role.

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 provides detailed guidance on when to use the tool, listing specific documentation types. It also advises to read first with karea_get_markdown and append rather than replace unless restructuring. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other writing tools like karea_add_note.

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