Write File

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but description adds critical behavioral detail: overwriting an existing file triggers interactive user approval (elicitation) and the server pauses for confirmation. Also explains error handling for file existence scenarios, adding value beyond 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?

Well-structured with sections for description, args, and error handling. Sentences are reasonably concise, though the error handling section could be integrated more succinctly. Overall, every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is thorough: it covers purpose, parameter details, side effects (automatic parent directory creation), interactive behavior, and error cases. No gaps remain for safe invocation.

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%, but description adds context: overwrite must be true for overwriting, default is false, and content is UTF-8. This clarifies usage beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Create a new file or overwrite an existing one', clearly identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like read_file, delete_file, and move_file by focusing on writing/creating files.

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?

Provides clear use case: create or overwrite files. Explains that overwriting requires interactive approval and the overwrite flag must be true. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the error handling and sibling list imply alternatives for reading or deletion.

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