write_full_text

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

Description discloses key behaviors like style controls and base-hash protection, but fails to detail what happens on base-hash mismatch, path non-existence, or the effect of 'if_exists' and 'create_dirs'. With no annotations, the description carries the burden and only moderately covers behavioral traits.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words, but could be slightly longer to cover more details without being verbose.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (per context), the description is too short. It omits how each parameter affects behavior and what the output looks like. The output schema is present but not referenced, so the description should still provide minimal return value context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'style controls' and 'base-hash protection' but does not explain individual parameters like 'bom', 'newline', 'encoding', 'final_newline', 'base_hash', 'if_exists', or 'create_dirs'. This is insufficient for a 9-parameter 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?

Description clearly states 'Write an entire text file' with specific verb and resource, and mentions 'explicit style controls' and 'optional base-hash protection', which distinguish it from siblings that handle incremental writes or edits.

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?

Description implies full file write but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'append_write_chunk' or 'apply_text_edits'. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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