write

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

The description discloses two important behavioral traits: overwrites existing content and automatically creates parent directories. With no annotations, this is useful but incomplete. It does not mention prerequisites, permissions, reversibility, or what happens if the file does not exist, which are expected for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core functionality and key side effects without filler. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately notes the overwrite behavior, making it highly scannable.

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 three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the role of 'project_path', any return value, or error conditions. The presence of sibling tools like 'edit' and 'read' also calls for clearer contextual differentiation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'content' and 'file' which loosely map to 'content' and 'file_path', but does not address 'project_path' at all. The meaning of the file location relative to project root is unspecified, leaving a key parameter unclear.

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 'Write content to a file' with the specific verb 'write' and resource 'file'. The parenthetical '(overwrites)' hints at behavior that distinguishes it from siblings like 'edit', giving enough clarity for purpose.

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?

It gives minimal context on when to use (writing/overwriting a file) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It also does not clarify how it differs from sibling tools like 'edit' beyond the overwrite hint, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.

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