Zapisz plik .env site

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

Annotation Contradiction: destructiveHint=false conflicts with the description's explicit warning that the entire .env file is overwritten and that other variables will be deleted ('skasujesz wszystkie pozostale zmienne'). This is a destructive effect, so the annotation and description directly disagree.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the core behavior, the second explains the non-merge warning and the required safety workflow. 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 simple three-parameter update tool, the description covers the key behavioral facts, the safe calling sequence, and the data-loss risk. It lacks an explicit return-value note, but the tool's low complexity and fully documented schema make this a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions already document site, content, and org. The description adds workflow context—that content must be the fetched-and-modified full file—but does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with 'Nadpisuje caly plik .env site', a specific verb (overwrite) and a specific resource (the site .env file), and distinguishes itself from a merge operation. This clearly separates it from siblings like forge_get_env and forge_update_nginx_config.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to fetch the current content with forge_get_env first, modify it, and then call this tool, warning that skipping this deletes all other variables. It also states this is not a merge operation, making the when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance very clear.

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