termix_files_write_fileWrite content to a file on a remote host while preserving existing permissions. Solves remote file updates without altering access rights.
Write to a file. Writes content to a file on the remote host and preserves the existing permissions when the file already exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| sessionId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal that the operation is not read-only and is open-world, and the description adds one useful behavioral detail: existing permissions are preserved. However, it does not disclose whether the tool overwrites existing content, creates missing files, or requires an active session, which are important for a write operation.
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 short, but the opening sentence 'Write to a file.' restates the tool name and title and adds no value. The second sentence is useful and well-placed, so overall it is compact but not optimally structured.
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?
With no output schema and only 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves out critical context: whether the file is created if it does not exist, whether content is appended or overwritten, what success/failure looks like, and how sessionId relates to the remote connection. The permission-preservation note is helpful but insufficient for a file mutation 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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only implicitly references 'content' by saying 'writes content,' but it does not explain what path should be, how sessionId is used, or whether the parameters are required or optional.
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 identifies a concrete operation—writing content to a file on a remote host—and adds a meaningful scoping detail (it preserves existing permissions when the file exists). It is not merely a tautology, though the opening sentence echoes the tool name and the description does not explicitly contrast with create_file or upload_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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of closely related siblings such as create_file, upload_file, or move_file_directory. The mention of preserving permissions for existing files hints at an update scenario, but there is no explicit when/when-not statement or mention of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.