mavis_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: overwrites any existing content and creates parent directories as needed. This goes beyond simple verb phrasing and alerts the agent to the destructive overwriting nature, which is crucial for safe tool selection.

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 four concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then adds important behavioral details and usage guidance. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 tool is a straightforward file-write operation. The description covers purpose, key behaviors (overwrite, mkdir), and usage boundaries, which is sufficient given the simple schema and lack of an output schema. It doesn't address edge cases like error handling, but that is not essential for this simple tool.

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 already provides full descriptions for all 3 parameters (coverage 100%), so the description need not repeat parameter-level details. The phrase 'full file content' reinforces the content parameter, but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Write content to a file') and immediately clarifies the overwrite behavior, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like mavis_edit. It also specifies the exact use case ('new files or full rewrites').

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this for new files or full rewrites.' It also names the alternative: 'For targeted edits, use mavis_edit instead.' This provides clear selection guidance.

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