coros_write

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that writes use an allowlist, validate inputs, and require the exact confirmation returned for the operation. This is useful context beyond annotations, clarifying the safety mechanism and confirmation flow. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition. Every sentence adds value: the trigger condition, the prerequisite call, and the behavioral constraint. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 generic write tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It tells the agent when to use it and that confirmation is required, but not how to construct valid operation/input values or what the tool returns. It relies on coros_capabilities to fill gaps, but the description does not explain that flow adequately.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at the confirmation parameter ('require the exact confirmation returned for that operation'). It does not explain what 'operation' or 'input' mean, nor how to obtain the confirmation value. This is a significant gap for a generic write tool.

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 indicates this is a generic write tool for COROS, but it does not specify what operations are possible or what kind of data it writes. It distinguishes itself as a fallback when specific tools are absent, which helps differentiate from siblings, but the core capability remains vague.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: when a specific COROS write tool is absent from an older chat. It also mandates calling coros_capabilities first, which is a clear prerequisite. This is good usage guidance, though it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, it implies them by contrast.

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