box_write_file

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint: false, so the description does not contradict. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself—no mention of overwriting behavior, side effects, permissions, or return values. The openWorldHint: true is not explained, and the description fails to disclose any additional traits.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Write a file') and includes necessary context ('relative to the box workdir') without any wasted 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 tool with no output schema and only a one-line description, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or how the tool interacts with other box tools. The concept 'box workdir' is undefined, and the presence of sibling tools such as box_create and box_read_file is not leveraged for context.

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 only 25% (only boxId has a description). The description adds some meaning by clarifying that path is 'relative to the box workdir', which helps agents understand path semantics. However, content and encoding are left without added context, and it does not fully compensate for the low 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 states 'Write a file relative to the box workdir' with a specific verb (Write) and resource (file), and the mention of 'box workdir' clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like box_read_file or box_exec.

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 (write a file to the box workdir) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. It relies on the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate, which is acceptable but not explicit.

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