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

The description discloses an important behavioral trait: it avoids shell mangling of quotes and backticks by passing content as a string directly to the file. This is beyond the basic write operation and helps set expectations about how content is handled. No annotations contradict this behavior.

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 slightly verbose but every sentence contributes meaningful context. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then explains the rationale and usage boundaries. No fluff, though it could be trimmed without losing value.

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, the description covers what it does, why it exists, and when to use it. It does not discuss errors, permissions, or edge cases, but those are not critical for such a straightforward operation. The description is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 schema already provides thorough descriptions for both parameters (path relative to /work, creating missing directories; content replaces the whole file). The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond rephrasing what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full coverage.

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 tool's function: 'Put a file in your account's container sandbox, creating any missing directories.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning it as the only file operation that is not a shell command.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It explains that shell commands are bad at writing files due to quoting issues, and directs users to use the shell for reading, listing, searching, or changing files. This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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