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

Annotations are minimal (only a title), so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that missing directories are created, content replaces existing data, and paths are relative to /work rather than the last cwd. It also explains the rationale for not using a shell. No destructive or read-only annotations exist to contradict, so no contradiction. It could mention error handling or permissions, but key behaviors are covered.

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 sentences: purpose, rationale, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the primary action, contains zero fluff, and every sentence earns its place. The guidance to use the shell for other operations is concise and actionable.

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 simple two-parameter write tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, when to use it (vs shell commands), key behavioral caveats (path scope, directory creation, overwrite). It does not mention error handling, return values, or interactions with files_put, but these are not critical for a basic write operation. The lack of explicit sibling differentiation is a minor gap.

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%, with both parameters (path and content) already described in the schema. The tool description itself does not add meaning beyond the schema—it repeats the overwrite aspect implicitly but adds no new parameter semantics. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a clear verb-resource statement: 'Put a file on your machine, creating any missing directories.' This distinguishes the tool from shell commands by explaining it avoids mangling quotes/backticks. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate against sibling tools like files_put, which may serve a similar write purpose, so it isn't fully unambiguous among file-writing options.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use the shell (cat, ls, grep, sed) for reading, listing, searching, or changing files, and implicitly designates this tool for writing. It also clarifies that this is the one file operation a shell is bad at. However, it does not compare against the files_put sibling or mention when to prefer one over the other, leaving some ambiguity for write operations.

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