Create file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly discloses key behaviors: creates a new file under root, creates missing directories, fails if file exists unless overwrite is true. This is strong transparency, though it omits details like permissions or error handling.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose, followed by two short sentences for key details (directory creation and overwrite). No fluff; every word earns its place.

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 simple CRUD create operation with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It explains path resolution, directory creation, and overwrite, which are key for correct invocation. It could include a note about what happens on success (e.g., returns nothing), but that is minor given the simplicity.

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 100% (all parameters described in schema), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'path' is relative to root (schema says relative, but description emphasizes it) and that content is for text. It also explains overwrite default behavior in context, which goes beyond schema's default value.

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 action ('Create a new file'), the target resource ('under the root'), and the content parameter ('with the given text content'). It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying the creation action and outlining key behaviors like creating missing directories and overwrite semantics.

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 when to use: to create a new file, and it differentiates from edit_file and delete_file by focusing on creation. It also explains the overwrite behavior, which is a common decision point. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., use edit_file for existing files unless overwriting).

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