Set scratchpad

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint and idempotentHint. The description's 'overwrite' implies destructive behavior, consistent with the annotation. It does not add further behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, which is acceptable.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence plus a sibling reference. It is front-loaded with the core action and entirely relevant.

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 simple overwrite tool with annotations present, the description covers the essential purpose and usage distinction. It does not explain the scratchpad concept or prerequisites, but these are likely implicit from the context.

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 2 parameters but only 'content' has a description. The tool description does not add meaning to 'project' or clarify its role. With 50% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 verb 'overwrite' and the resource 'board's scratchpad.md', and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'append_scratchpad' by mentioning the alternative for adding without replacement.

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 tells when to use the sibling tool ('use append_scratchpad to add a note without replacing existing content'), which defines when not to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state prerequisites or other exclusions beyond this.

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