write_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a mutating action (create/replace entirely) and adds a notable side effect: the operation is recorded in file_history. This goes beyond a bare 'writes' and covers a meaningful behavior, though other traits (e.g., overwrite confirmation) are absent.

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, comprising two short phrases with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the history note is appended efficiently. Perfectly sized for its simple purpose.

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 are covered. The description covers the core action and history side effect. However, with no annotations and sibling partial-edit tools, it could be more explicit about when to choose this over append_file or str_replace_file. The ambiguity is mitigated by 'entero' but not fully resolved, leaving minor gaps.

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 must compensate. It does not explain the 'path' or 'content' parameters at all. Although the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning or format expectations beyond the bare schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 tool creates or completely replaces a file in the vault, using the verb 'Crea o REEMPLAZA ENTERO' which distinguishes it from partial-edit siblings. It identifies the resource (vault file) and implies full-file operations, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

The description implies when to use (create or fully overwrite a file) but does not state when not to use it or explicitly mention alternatives like append_file or str_replace_file for partial edits. The 'entero' hints at full replacement but lacks explicit routing.

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