wirk_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses atomicity, optimistic concurrency via revisions (basis_changed refusal), a requires_review refusal path, and idempotent retry via request_id after an uncertain result. It omits what the operation returns and any permission/rate-limit context, but the failure-mode disclosure is rich.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, but the phrasing is cryptic ('Context changes apply when you may make them') and jams multiple error codes, modes, and retry instructions into a single line. Efficient in size, weak in readability.

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 7-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers behavior well but leaves real gaps: workspace_id and format are unexplained, and with no output schema the 'receipt' the description references is never described. Adequate but not 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?

Schema coverage is 57%, and much of the description's parameter text (expect format, reason, request_id) restates the schema's own descriptions rather than extending them. It does reinforce the expect-as-basis semantic and the request_id retry contract, but adds little syntax or meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Change items and links in one atomic batch.' The atomic-batch qualifier is meaningful and tells the agent this is a multi-operation write. It does not distinguish itself from the read-oriented siblings (wirk_query, wirk_show, wirk_status), but the write/read split is inferable.

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?

Gives conditional guidance for mode propose ('Context changes apply when you may make them; otherwise they are refused with requires_review: propose them') and for retries, which is genuinely useful routing. However it never compares against sibling tools or states when NOT to use this tool, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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