efs_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses automatic cache invalidation, mode behavior (rewrite/append), and the lack of chunking requirements. This is useful but does not cover all potential side effects like overwriting behavior or error handling.

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?

Two concise sentences with key information front-loaded. No wasted words, effectively communicates essential attributes and behavior.

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?

The description covers the essential behavioral aspects (size, modes, cache) and is sufficient for a simple write operation. No output schema is present, but return values are not critical here. Slight gap in not mentioning file creation/overwrite 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, only mentioning mode defaults and cache invalidation. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given 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 'Write file' with specific capabilities (any size, no chunking) and distinguishes from siblings like efs_edit by focusing on write operations. Mode options further refine the purpose.

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 implies usage for writing files and notes 'no chunking required' which suggests suitability for large files, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool compared to efs_edit or other siblings.

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