Upload text file

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

Adds behavior beyond annotations: the subdirectory allowlist, the refuse-to-overwrite default with the overwrite escape hatch, and the binary-unsupported limitation. Annotations cover the destructive/mutating profile, so this is solid supplemental context. It does not mention permissions or content-size limits.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and the scope constraint. No filler; each sentence carries an independent fact (allowlist, overwrite, format limit).

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?

No output schema, so the description should convey what happens on success/failure, and it does not. Five parameters at 40% coverage leave profile and project semantics undocumented; the description is adequate but has clear gaps for a write tool.

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 40%, so the description should compensate. It clarifies the overwrite parameter's semantics (refuses unless true) and the accepted directory set relevant to relPath, but says nothing about project, profile, or the 1,000,000-char content cap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Write a text file') plus a precise scope constraint: it must live in one of six enumerated safe subdirectories. This distinguishes it cleanly from sibling file tools like ris_list_project_files or ris_get_result_manifest.

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?

It states the constraint (safe subdirectory allowlist) and the overwrite refusal, which implies when to set overwrite=true. But it gives no explicit when-to-use versus siblings and no prerequisites such as authentication or project existence.

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