write_file

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses destructive behavior (overwrite) and that it operates on text files in the sandbox root, but lacks details on error handling or behavior when the path does not exist.

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 concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with the purpose, and uses clear bullet-style argument descriptions without unnecessary 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?

For a simple write tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, prerequisite, and parameter semantics. Could be improved by mentioning that content replaces the entire file (not append) or what happens on invalid paths.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial context: 'path' is relative to root, and 'content' is the full text to write. This clarifies usage beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('Create or overwrite') and the resource ('text file inside the sandbox root'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that read or list files.

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 an explicit prerequisite ('Disabled unless the server was started with AB_MCP_ALLOW_WRITE enabled'), but does not compare directly to siblings or specify when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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