write_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the critical workflow difference: in a workspace it only writes for review/push_local, while without one it commits and pushes immediately. It does not mention overwrite semantics or potential errors, but the most important behavioral trait is well covered.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds distinct value about workspace-dependent behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most important contextual distinction (workspace vs no workspace) and the associated commitMessage requirement. It omits details like whether the file is overwritten, return values, and contrasts with write_section, but is still quite complete for a high-level understanding.

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 50%, with projectName and commitMessage described while content and filePath are not. The description adds context by noting commitMessage is required when there is no workspace, which complements the schema, but it does not explain the required params. The names are fairly self-explanatory, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 clearly states 'Write a whole file' with a specific verb and resource, directly distinguishing it from sibling tools like write_section. It unambiguously conveys the tool's core purpose.

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?

It provides clear contextual guidance by explaining behavior with and without a workspace, including the commitMessage requirement. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like write_section or provide exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full comparative guidance.

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