seafile_write_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: the overwrite behavior ('If the file exists, it will be overwritten'), creation behavior ('If it doesn't exist, it will be created'), and a constraint ('Parent directories must exist'). It also mentions the return type ('OperationResult indicating success or failure'), though it lacks details on error handling or permissions.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral details and parameter/return sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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's complexity (a write operation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and returns, but could improve by addressing potential errors or auth requirements, though the output schema helps mitigate gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing the parameters in the 'Args' section, but it does not provide additional context like format examples or constraints (e.g., path syntax). This meets the baseline for high schema 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 verb ('Create or update') and resource ('a text file in Seafile'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like seafile_read_file (read-only) and seafile_upload_file (which might handle binary uploads), establishing a clear write operation.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Create or update a text file') and includes a prerequisite ('Parent directories must exist'), which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., seafile_upload_file for non-text files), missing full sibling differentiation.

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