Escrever arquivo texto

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It does mention optional hash validation, which is a behavioral trait beyond the basic write operation. However, it does not clarify whether the tool overwrites existing files, how createDirs behaves, what happens on hash mismatch, or the return value.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core purpose and a key distinguishing feature without wasting words.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It omits critical contextual details such as overwrite behavior, directory creation, error handling on hash mismatch, and any return value. The agent would need to rely on assumptions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It only indirectly references expectedSha256 via 'validação opcional de hash'. It fails to explain filePath, content, or createDirs, leaving the agent without essential parameter semantics beyond the schema names.

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 it writes a text file, using the specific verb 'escreve' and identifying the resource (arquivo de texto). It also mentions the distinguishing feature of optional hash validation, which sets it apart from sibling tools like fs.read_text and fs.edit_lines.

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 phrase 'para edição assertiva' implies a use case for safe, intentional file writes, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fs.edit_lines or fs.mkdirp. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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