writer_generate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the most non-obvious trait: output is generated by external OpenRouter models rather than Claude, with automatic model selection from the user's leaderboard or a cost-effective default. It does not cover failure modes, costs, rate limits, or latency of the external dependency, which are the remaining gaps.

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 sentences with no waste: the purpose and trigger are front-loaded in sentence one, the workflow in sentence two, and the model-selection behavior in sentence three. Each sentence adds distinct, necessary 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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: when to trigger it, what workflow to follow before calling, and which models will execute generation. The gaps — unspecified return format and no guidance on external-service unavailability — are modest and do not block correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents prompt, category, model_id, max_tokens, temperature, and system_prompt with defaults and examples. The description adds only marginal framing around the leaderboard-based model selection, which largely restates what the schema says about category and model_id defaults.

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 opens with 'PRIMARY WRITING TOOL' and states a specific verb+resource: write, draft, or compose content, with enumerated types (emails, articles, proposals, essays, sales copy, social posts). It also discloses the core mechanism — delegation to OpenRouter models — which clearly distinguishes it from the benchmark_* sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this tool whenever the user asks to write, draft, or compose content.' It also defines the exact workflow — outline strategy first, then delegate generation to OpenRouter rather than spending Claude output tokens — and implies the exclusion of direct long-form generation with Claude. No writing alternative exists among the siblings, so no other routing is needed.

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