write_remote_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is partly covered. The description usefully adds that existing files are replaced and that content is limited to text, but it omits whether parent directories must exist, permission requirements, or encoding behavior. Note: 'remplace' (replaces) has mild tension with destructiveHint=false, but replacing content is not clearly irreversible destruction, so this is not flagged as a contradiction.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb, with no filler. It is appropriately sized and wastes nothing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a mutating tool with 0% parameter description coverage and no usage guidance, the description should at least address path semantics and overwrite implications; it does not.

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% across both required parameters (path, content), so the description carries the full burden. It implies text content via 'fichier texte' but says nothing about path format (absolute/relative, remote convention) or size/encoding limits, leaving a real gap for a write tool with two required params.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('écrit ou remplace un fichier texte distant') and clarifies scope with examples ('script, configuration') and a text-only constraint. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like upload_to_romeo or read_remote_file, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus upload_to_romeo, download_from_romeo, or build_on_node, all of which touch remote files. The parenthetical examples describe file kinds, not selection criteria, so the agent is left to infer usage.

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