write-to-file

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It correctly reveals the create/write/update semantics and remote location, but does not disclose whether existing file contents are overwritten without confirmation, whether missing directories are created automatically, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool that can clobber live .env or config content, this is a notable gap.

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 sentences with action and examples front-loaded and no filler. The mandate sentence earns its place by conveying usage priority. The only minor cost is the 'AI AGENT MANDATE' framing, which is slightly pushy but still compact.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and agent usage well but leaves gaps: no response/return information, no overwrite or path-creation behavior, and no differentiation from overlapping siblings (write_to_file, create_file, milehost_deploy_file). Adequate but not complete.

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 100% — all five parameters (api_key, api_url, content, file_path, folder_id) already have meaningful schema descriptions. The description's file-type examples slightly reinforce file_path semantics but add no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action set — 'Creates, writes, or updates file content' — with an explicit target location ('user remote container folder on MileHost') and concrete file examples (bot.py, .env, package.json, requirements.txt, config.json). The action and resource are unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling read/run/delete/reboot 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?

The 'AI AGENT MANDATE' sentence gives explicit direction: use this tool directly for deploying/creating/updating bot code and configuration files 'instead of writing local files or scripts.' This states the primary use case and an exclusion condition, though it never names which overlapping siblings (milehost_deploy_file, create_file) to prefer for related but different tasks.

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