Set scratchpad

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

The description aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by stating 'Overwrite' and 'replace existing content'. It adds useful context about the specific file and board beyond the structured fields.

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 exceptionally concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and providing a helpful alternative reference without any waste.

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 tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description covers the main action adequately. However, missing parameter semantics for 'project' creates a gap. Overall, it is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 schema covers 50% of parameters with descriptions; the description does not compensate for the undocumented 'project' parameter. It fails to explain what 'project' refers to, leaving ambiguity.

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 action ('Overwrite'), the resource ('a board's scratchpad.md'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'append_scratchpad' by specifying the alternative for adding without replacing.

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 mentions when to use 'append_scratchpad' instead, providing clear context for choosing between tools. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool beyond that alternative.

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