write_file

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

Annotations lack readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, so description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'create or overwrite', which implies mutation but does not disclose details like permission requirements, whether existing files are replaced silently, or if missing directories are created. Minimal behavioral context.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with no wasted words. Clearly identifies the action and context. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

As a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits critical context like whether overwriting is safe, if directories are created, supported text formats, or error behavior. For a file-writing tool, agents need more operational details.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., does not explain edge cases like relative paths, encoding, or constraints on content). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clearly states the tool creates or overwrites a text file in a Godot project. This distinguishes it from siblings like read_file (read only) and create_directory (directory creation). The verb 'create or overwrite' and resource 'text file' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, does not mention that read_file is for reading, or that create_directory is for creating directories. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information.

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