file_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses destructive behavior ('replace'), the encoding contract ('UTF-8'), and important safety behavior ('Sensitive paths and symlink targets are rejected'). It omits some details like permission requirements and return values, but the key side effects are transparent.

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 sentences with no filler. The core function is front-loaded, and the safety constraint is presented as a separate, easy-to-parse sentence.

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?

For a write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema-level parameter descriptions, the description is under-specified. An agent cannot tell what a successful call returns, how paths are resolved inside the workspace, or what qualifies as a 'sensitive path.' The basic operation is clear, but the operational context for reliable invocation is incomplete.

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%, so the description needed to add meaning to the parameters. It only indirectly covers them: 'registered workspace' implies projectId, 'UTF-8' relates to content, and path constraints are mentioned as sensitive/symlink rejections. It does not explain whether path is relative to the workspace root, whether directories are created, or how the 5MB content limit behaves.

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 and object: 'Create or replace one UTF-8 file inside a registered workspace.' This distinguishes file_write from siblings like file_read, file_patch, and workspace-management tools by making full-file write/replace semantics explicit.

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 clear implied context: use this tool to create or replace full files in a registered workspace. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer file_patch for partial edits or how to handle an unregistered workspace, so guidance is implied rather than made explicit.

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