write_artifact

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true and destructive=true. The description adds genuine extra context by disclosing two refusal behaviors (.json paths must contain valid JSON; paths outside the repo are rejected), which the annotations cannot convey. It does not, however, address what the destructive flag means in practice — whether an existing file is overwritten, whether parent directories are created, or what happens on success.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the constraint clauses. Every sentence earns its place.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers purpose and refusal conditions adequately. The remaining gap is the absence of any statement about overwrite/create semantics, which matters for a tool flagged destructive.

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 100%: the schema already documents path, repo, and content, including the repo resolution rules and the list_repos cross-reference. The description's 'repo-relative path' merely restates the schema and adds no syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (write) and resource (VBCS artifact file) with its scoping rule (repo-relative path), which is clearly distinguishable from read_artifact, list_artifacts, and search_artifacts. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 never says when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g., that the file is overwritten, or that the repo must already be cloned via git_clone). Usage is only implied by the verb 'write'.

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