Write Document

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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond annotations: it reports formatting preservation, takes a Scrivener snapshot when dropping non-round-trippable content, and explains the force parameter's default refusal. Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value without contradiction.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the purpose first, then covers behavior, alternatives, and prerequisites in a clear, well-structured paragraph without unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, how it handles formatting, the safety behavior (force and snapshot), alternatives, and prerequisites. Even without an output schema, it explains the return result (formatting preservation report and snapshot notification).

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The force parameter behavior is already described in the schema, so no extra semantic value from the description.

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 tool's purpose: 'Replace a document's text with new content, preserving the surrounding Scrivener formatting...' It uses a specific verb (replace) and resource (document's text), and explicitly distinguishes from siblings update_document and create_document.

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 states when to use alternatives: 'To change only the title or metadata use update_document; to add a new document use create_document.' It also mentions prerequisites: 'Requires an open project and a valid document id.'

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