write_fileWrite UTF-8 text content to a file in Filen cloud, creating or overwriting it and automatically generating parent directories as needed.
Write UTF-8 text content to a file in the Filen cloud, creating or overwriting it. Parent directories are created automatically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute cloud path of the file to write, e.g. '/notes/todo.txt' | |
| content | Yes | Text content to write (UTF-8) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description corroborates with 'creating or overwriting it' and adds a genuinely non-structured detail: parent directories are created automatically. It does not mention limits, encoding edge cases, or what an overwrite loses.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the destructive 'overwriting' consequence before the ancillary directory-creation note. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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 2-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the essential facts are present. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on what is returned (or that nothing is) would close the remaining gap.
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% and both parameters are documented with examples ('/notes/todo.txt') and encoding notes. The description's 'UTF-8' and 'cloud' framing restates schema content, so it adds little beyond the baseline for fully covered parameters.
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 and resource: writing UTF-8 text content to a file in Filen cloud, with create-or-overwrite semantics. The 'UTF-8 text' qualifier implicitly separates it from upload_file (binary), but no sibling is named explicitly.
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 on when to use this versus upload_file, download_file, or create_folder, and no mention of prerequisites or when-not-to-use. The agent must infer the text-vs-binary split from the word 'UTF-8' alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.