Write File

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description warns of silent overwrites, mentions proper text encoding, and restricts to allowed directories. This adds useful behavioral context about data safety and environment constraints. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise with three sentences: purpose, caution, and additional context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, fitting the tool's simplicity.

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 the simple tool with two parameters and presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, its destructive nature, encoding, and directory restrictions. No critical gaps.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'path' is a file location within allowed directories and 'content' is text, but lacks details on format, size limits, or path syntax. Moderate value added.

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 the tool creates new files or completely overwrites existing ones. It distinguishes from sibling tools like edit_file by specifying 'completely overwrite,' and includes scope restriction ('only works within allowed directories').

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 provides a clear caution about overwriting without warning, implying appropriate usage for full replacement. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like edit_file or state when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity.

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