aya_arquivo_escrever_seguro

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a solid job: it discloses that it blocks specific paths, validates UTF-8, requires write mode, creates backups, uses an optimistic hash, writes, and logs/audits. It omits failure handling and conflict resolution details, but the declared behaviors are substantial and specific.

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?

A single dense sentence packs several important behaviors without fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose (controlled writing) and sequentially lists safety measures, making it efficient and scannable.

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 description covers the main operations and safety features, but lacks details on failure modes (e.g., what happens on hash mismatch or invalid UTF-8), expected return/errors, and how it should be selected over sibling tools like aya_arquivo_substituir_literal. Given the absence of output schema and annotations, these gaps leave the agent with partial guidance.

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 explains the purpose of hashEsperado via 'uses optimistic hash' and hints at write-mode requirements, but it does not clarify the semantics of 'modelo' (model) or 'motivo' (reason) parameters. Caminho and conteudo are self-explanatory from their names, but the obscure optional parameters remain underdocumented.

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 performs controlled textual file writing, listing specific safety behaviors (blocks vendor/.git, validates UTF-8, creates backups, optimistic hash, logs). This distinguishes it from generic write tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a clear differentiator.

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 implies usage context by listing preconditions like 'requires write mode' and path restrictions (blocks vendor/.git), hinting at safe write scenarios. However, it never states when not to use this tool or points to alternatives such as aya_arquivo_substituir_literal, leaving routing to the agent's inference.

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