Write UTF-8 text files to a Tenki sandbox at an absolute path under /home/tenki using a session ID. Use this to add or modify files in an isolated microVM environment.
Write a UTF-8 text file to a sandbox (paths under /home/tenki).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute path inside the sandbox, under /home/tenki. | |
| content | Yes | ||
| session_id | Yes | Sandbox session id (UUID), from tenki_create_sandbox or tenki_list_sandboxes. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a non-read-only operation, so the main burden is on the description to explain side effects. It adds useful particulars (UTF-8 encoding, restricted path), but does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, whether parent directories are created, or what errors may occur.
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?
One focused sentence that front-loads the verb and object, then adds the key path constraint. No filler or repetition.
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?
Adequate for a simple write operation, but because there is no output schema and no mention of overwrite or directory behavior, an agent could still be uncertain about side effects and failure conditions. The core purpose is clear, but the operational contract 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 descriptions cover session_id and path, leaving content undocumented. The description adds the UTF-8 text requirement and reinforces the path restriction, but does not add substantial semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('a UTF-8 text file to a sandbox'), and immediately narrows the scope with '(paths under /home/tenki)'. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling file, exec, and volume tools.
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 guidance is given about when to choose this tool over siblings like tenki_exec, tenki_update_volume, or even tenki_make_dir. The description only restates the operation; it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., directory existence) or exclusions such as binary file handling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.