write_fileCreates or overwrites workspace text files and any needed parent folders, while enforcing policy and approval for controlled file operations.
Cria ou sobrescreve um arquivo de texto no workspace. Cria diretórios pais. Sujeito a política e aprovação.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Caminho relativo ao workspace | |
| content | Yes | Conteúdo completo do arquivo | |
| confirm_token | No | Token da etapa de confirmação |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses destructive overwrite, the parent-directory creation side effect, and the policy/approval gate. This adds context that annotations would otherwise need to supply, though the confirm_token confirmation workflow is left unexplained.
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?
Three sentences with the primary action front-loaded first, followed by the side effect and the constraint. Every sentence contributes a distinct fact and there is no filler.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational facts: core action, destructive overwrite, directory side effect, and approval gate. The notable gap is that the confirm_token parameter implies a two-step confirmation workflow the description does not explain.
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%, placing the baseline at 3, but the description adds genuine semantic value to the path parameter by stating parent directories are auto-created — telling the agent it can supply a path in a non-existent directory. The schema conveys this nowhere.
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 states a specific action ('cria ou sobrescreve' — creates or overwrites) on a specific resource ('arquivo de texto no workspace'), which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous. The create-or-overwrite semantics immediately distinguish it from the closest sibling edit_file and from read_file.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The overwrite-vs-edit contrast with edit_file is only implied, and the note that parent directories are auto-created implies make_dir may be unnecessary, but no sibling is named and no exclusion conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.