write_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it says nothing about overwrite semantics, path handling, permissions, or failure modes. An agent cannot predict whether this tool creates new files, truncates existing ones, or requires special setup.

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 minimal but this is under-specification, not effective conciseness. It has no additional sentences that could have provided necessary context while remaining brief.

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 a mutating tool with two bare-string parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is grossly incomplete. An agent has almost no basis to call this tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the path or content parameters at all. There is no clarification of what 'path' means, whether it supports relative paths, or what format content should take.

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 file contents' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'write_file', restating the name without adding any specificity. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like read_file or write_matrix_entry beyond the obvious verb.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of file creation, overwriting behavior, or context in which write_file is preferred over read_file or write_matrix_entry.

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