write_automation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses snapshotting, reread confirmation, and automatic rollback on any failure, plus the critical destructive semantic that a declared range means replacement rather than merge. It omits permission requirements and what happens to envelope data outside the declared range, keeping it short of a 5.

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 dense sentences with the transactional guarantee front-loaded and the range-replacement caveat last. No filler, every clause adds information.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the safety model well but leaves parameter usage, targeting precedence (GUID vs name vs selection), and sibling differentiation unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 54% across 13 parameters, so the description should compensate more than it does. It clarifies the semantics of ranges/replacement and implicitly the dry_run-vs-write distinction, but leaves many targeting parameters (fx_index, param_index, fx_scope, param_name_contains) relying on sparse schema text.

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: writing one FX-parameter envelope transactionally, with named sub-behaviors (snapshot, range replacement, reread, rollback). However it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling apply_automation_transaction, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 rule 'A declared range always means replacement' implies when the range parameter applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over apply_automation_transaction, set_fx_param, or get_fx_param_automation. Usage is only weakly implied.

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