write_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load well: it discloses destructive full-overwrite semantics, that writes land in file_history (i.e., recoverable via restore_file), and hard-blocked paths. It omits what happens on invalid paths or whether parent directories are created, so it falls short of 5.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive replacement warning and path restrictions front-loaded before the pre-read instruction.

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 no explanation, and the description covers the critical risks (overwrite, protected files, history). The unresolved gap is path/content semantics for the two undocumented parameters, which matters for a write 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it only hints at content semantics via the 'leé FORMAT.md' prerequisite. Nothing explains whether 'path' is vault-relative, whether extensions are required, or what content format (markdown/frontmatter) is expected.

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?

States a specific verb (create/replace) plus resource (vault file) and emphasizes 'REEMPLAZA ENTERO', which distinguishes it from append_file and str_replace_file in the sibling list without opening their schemas.

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?

Gives clear prerequisites ('Antes de crear una nota, leé FORMAT.md') and explicit exclusions (BRAIN.md, FORMAT.md, FACT-CHECK.md are user-edited). It never names append_file or str_replace_file as the alternatives for partial edits, so the agent must infer that from the emphasis on full replacement.

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