safe_write_file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful context: the write is conditional on a hash match, and it only applies to existing files. It doesn't disclose the failure mode on mismatch, but it enriches the behavioral model beyond the annotations.

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?

A single sentence, perfectly front-loaded, with no redundant words. Every word contributes meaning, and it conveys the core contract efficiently.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the full contract: target (existing file), precondition (hash must match), and the conditional nature of the overwrite. It implies the required 'read first then safe write' workflow.

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. It explains 'expected_sha256' via the SHA-256 condition, and 'path'/'content' are self-evident. However, 'server_id' is not mentioned, and the description does not fully elaborate each parameter's purpose.

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 specifies a clear action ('Overwrite') with a specific resource ('existing text file') and a precise condition (SHA-256 match). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'write_file' tool, which likely performs unconditional writes.

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 condition 'only if its SHA-256 still matches the value previously read' clearly implies a compare-and-swap workflow, indicating when this tool should be used (when you have a prior read hash and want to avoid clobbering changes). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough.

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