begin_write_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Start a chunked write session' without mentioning that the session must be committed/aborted, potential side effects, or required permissions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 very concise (7 words) but under-specified. Conciseness should not come at the cost of missing critical information. It fails to earn its place by omitting essential usage details.

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 tool has 8 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and 9 sibling tools, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the workflow, how the session integrates with other write tools, or the meaning of any parameters. The presence of an output schema does not compensate.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters (e.g., path, encoding, if_exists). The agent gains no additional insight beyond parameter names and types.

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 action ('Start') and the resource ('chunked write session'), and specifies it is 'for large generated files', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'write_full_text'.

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 implies use for large files when chunked writing is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'write_full_text' or provide context about workflow (e.g., must commit or abort).

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