files_write_config_file

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behaviors: YAML validation by default and auto-creation of parent directories. It does not specify overwrite behavior or error handling, but these are implied by 'write content'.

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 concise sentences with no redundant information. The most important details (what it does, validation option, directory creation) are front-loaded.

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?

The description covers core behavior but omits return value, error conditions, and file overwrite behavior. Given the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description could be more complete. It's adequate but has gaps.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds meaning for validate_yaml (explains validation) but offers no additional semantics for relative_path or content. Compensation is partial; a 3 is appropriate given the gap.

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 tool writes content to a config file, validates YAML syntax, and creates parent directories. It distinguishes from siblings like 'files_append_to_config_file' and 'files_validate_yaml_content' by mentioning validation and overwriting behavior.

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 provides guidance on when to use validation (setting validate_yaml=False to skip), but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like append or write for non-config files. No when-not-to-use or alternatives mentioned.

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