Overwrite a text file's content, creating it if missing. Review current file content first to avoid breaking running applications when modifying config, env, or source files.
Overwrite a text file's content (creates it if it doesn't exist). Can break a running app if it's a config/env/source file - review the current content first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | ||
| file_path | Yes | ||
| file_content | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does disclose the overwrite/create semantics and the risky effect on a running app. However, it fails to mention the mandatory `confirm` gate, whether the overwrite is irreversible, or what happens on errors or path issues.
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?
Two tightly worded, front-loaded sentences. The core action is stated first and the risk/recommendation follows immediately, with no distracting detail or redundancy.
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 three-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations or output schema, the description is underdeveloped. It leaves the `confirm` flag, error behavior, file-path semantics, and safety details unspecified, so an agent cannot confidently invoke the tool correctly from this definition alone.
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 and the description does not effectively compensate. It only hints that file_content is text, but does not clarify file_path format, that confirm must be true, or the relationship between parameters and the described behavior.
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 opening line states a specific operation (overwrite) on a specific resource (a text file's content) and adds that creates file if it doesn't exist, distinguishing it from read, list, and most delete/rename tools. The description does not name a specific sibling alternative, but the action semantics are clear enough to separate it from the many other file tools.
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 supplies context relevant to choosing this tool: it's for replacing file content, with a caution about breaking running apps when the file is a config/env/source file and a suggestion to review it first. It does not name sibling tools or state when to prefer this over alternatives, leaving 'when to use' mostly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.