write_resource

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Write properties' implies mutation, but it does not explain overwrite semantics, the create_backup behavior (which defaults to true), file handling, or any side effects. The agent is left without critical safety information for a mutation operation.

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 one short sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though its brevity contributes to the lack of depth in other dimensions.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, the absence of an output schema, and the need to disambiguate from numerous write_* and create_* sibling tools, this description is not complete. It does not explain what a 'resource' is in this context, the .tres file format, backup behavior, or how this tool differs from create_resource. The description expects the agent to infer too much.

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?

The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the input schema already provides thorough descriptions for all three parameters (path, properties, create_backup), covering 100% of them. Therefore, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 provides a clear verb ('write') and resource type, but is vague: it doesn't specify whether this modifies an existing resource or creates a new one, nor does it mention .tres files. It needs to differentiate from sibling tools like create_resource and duplicate_resource, which have overlapping purposes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this writes to an existing resource, nor does it suggest when to prefer create_resource or read_resource. Multiple write_* siblings exist, but no context is provided.

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