Writes content to a sandboxed file in your home directory, creating parent directories automatically.
Write content to a file (sandboxed to home directory). Creates parent directories if needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | File path (absolute or ~/relative) | |
| content | Yes | Full file content to write |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations by saying files are sandboxed to the home directory and parent directories are created automatically. However, it omits critical write semantics such as whether an existing file is overwritten or truncated.
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 two short sentences and front-loads the main action and scope. Every phrase adds useful information: the write action, the sandbox constraint, and parent-directory creation.
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 annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the sandbox and parent-directory behavior. It still leaves a notable gap around overwrite/truncation behavior, which matters when an agent invokes a write operation against an existing file.
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 coverage is 100%, so both path and content are already documented. The description adds a meaningful path constraint by saying the operation is sandboxed to the home directory, but it does not add content-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Write content to a file.' It also gives the scope constraint '(sandboxed to home directory),' which clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings such as read_file and file_info.
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?
Usage is implied by the clear write verb and file scope, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as read_file or trash_file, so the agent must infer context from the tool name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.