File Write Text

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: parent directories are auto-created via file_mkdir and overwrite=skip leaves existing files untouched. However, it does not explain the default overwrite=replace (a silent destructive overwrite) or what 'rename' does, nor any auth/permission requirements, which matters for a mutation tool.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the mutation nature and upload-equivalence come first, then the mkdir and overwrite caveats. Every sentence carries information, though the phrasing is slightly compressed for non-Chinese readers.

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 not be described, and the description covers the mutation nature, directory auto-creation, and skip behavior. Remaining gaps (replace/rename semantics, permission needs) are moderate rather than critical for correct invocation.

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 86% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the overwrite enum has no per-value description, and the text explains the skip case and the implicit parent-path creation tied to path. It still leaves replace/rename semantics unexplained, so it is above baseline but not complete.

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 (把文本内容直接写入 NAS 文件), marks it as a write operation, and distinguishes it from the binary path by noting it is '组合 upload 实现' and aimed at small text files. An agent can tell this apart from file_upload / file_mkdir from the description alone.

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 a clear context ('适合写配置、脚本、compose 文件等小文本') and hints at the sibling relationship with file_upload, plus the overwrite=skip condition. It stops short of explicitly stating when NOT to use it (e.g. large/binary content → file_upload), so it is clear but not fully routed.

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