fs_write

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 reveals that the operation overwrites existing content, creates parent directories as needed, and is restricted to FSGUARD_ROOT. This covers key side effects and constraints. It does not mention permissions, failure modes, or atomicity, but for a simple write operation the core behaviors are well disclosed.

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 concise sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary action and immediately follows with important behavioral details. Every word adds value, making it an exemplar of efficient writing.

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, the description covers the essential behavior: creating/overwriting, parent directory creation, and the root restriction. It lacks details like return values or error handling, but those are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'content' is text and 'path' can include nested directories (since parents are created) and must be within FSGUARD_ROOT. However, it does not explicitly define the format of 'path' (relative vs absolute) or provide examples. It adds some semantic value but is not fully explanatory.

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 ('Write'), the resource ('a text file'), and the behavior ('creating or overwriting'). It also notes the automatic creation of parent directories, which distinguishes it from a simple write. The sibling tools (read, list, search, move) are clearly distinct, so purpose is unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool (for writing files), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions, such as 'use fs_move to relocate files' or 'use fs_append for non-overwriting writes.' The intended usage is inferred from the verb and siblings, but not explicitly guided.

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