Writes content to a file and creates missing parent directories, with an option to overwrite existing files or skip directory creation.
Write content to a file with automatic directory creation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | Content to write | |
| file_path | Yes | Target file path | |
| overwrite | No | Allow overwriting existing files | |
| create_dirs | No | Auto-create parent directories |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states automatic directory creation (which the schema's create_dirs default already implies) but says nothing about what happens when the target file already exists, whether writes are atomic/truncating, or what errors to expect.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing is wasted.
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 4-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits critical context: the overwrite/error behavior, return value, and any destructive implications of overwriting existing content. An agent cannot tell from the description alone how to write safely.
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 all four parameters are already documented, including the defaults for overwrite and create_dirs. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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?
The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Write content to a file') and adds a scope note about directory creation. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like batch_process, though the read-oriented siblings make the write role fairly evident.
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?
No guidance on when to use write_file versus alternatives such as batch_process or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites, permissions, or the fact that an existing file will fail unless overwrite is set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.