file_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'write or create' but does not explain overwrite vs. append behavior, side effects, or requirements (e.g., permissions). The existence of an 'append' parameter is not mentioned.

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 extremely concise (one sentence). While brevity is valued, it sacrifices essential details. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, more structure would improve clarity.

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?

Given the complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error handling, or behavior when the file exists. The tool's full capabilities are not conveyed.

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 0%, meaning the description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema. The parameter names (path, content, append) are self-explanatory, but no format, constraints, or usage tips are given. The description misses the chance to clarify the role of 'append'.

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 action ('write or create') and resource ('project files'). It is distinct from sibling tools like file_read, file_delete, etc. However, it does not elaborate on whether writing overwrites or appends, which could be ambiguous.

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. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or exclusion criteria are provided. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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