write_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the overwrite behavior, which is a critical destructive trait. However, it omits other important behaviors such as whether the file is created if it does not exist, what permissions are required, or what happens on failure. This is partial disclosure.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and directly states the core purpose. Every word earns its place, no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple with only 3 required parameters, all clearly described in the schema. The description covers the essential purpose and the overwrite behavior. Given no output schema, it could mention return values, but for a simple write operation, the current description is mostly complete. The only gap is the lack of clarification on file creation behavior.

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%, so each parameter has a clear description. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 when the schema handles the heavy lifting. No compensation needed.

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 'Write content to remote file (overwrite)' clearly identifies the verb (write), resource (remote file), and key behavioral trait (overwrite). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like read_file and upload_file by specifying the action of writing raw content directly to a remote path.

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 description implies usage when one needs to write text content to a remote file, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. For example, it does not mention that upload_file may be more appropriate for uploading whole files. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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