Create a new file with the given contents to act as a decoy, helping AI agents identify and block prompt injection attempts.
Create a new file with the given contents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path of the file to create. | |
| content | No | Content to write to the file. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic creation intent but does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, whether parent directories are created, what happens on conflict, or any permission requirements.
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 one short sentence with no filler and gets to the point immediately. It could be slightly more informative while staying concise, but it is not bloated.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a similarly named sibling (write_file), the description needs to clarify overwrite behavior, error cases, and path semantics to be safely invocable. It currently leaves important operational details unspecified.
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 input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema—'given contents' maps to the content parameter, but it does not clarify path handling, formatting, or interaction between the two parameters.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Create a new file') and mentions the contents, making it clear this is a file-creation action. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling write_file, which may perform a similar or overlapping operation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as write_file or delete_file. No exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.