create_text_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature of overwriting and the return message type ('Returns a message indicating success or failure'). However, it does not mention potential side effects like handling of missing directories or encoding behavior beyond the utf-8 note in the schema.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and directly states the return value. Every word adds value and there is no redundant information.

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 two-parameter tool with well-described schema and a stated return message, the description is complete enough. It could explicitly mention that overwriting replaces content without confirmation, but that is already implied by 'overwrite an existing file'.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('relative_path' and 'content'), so the tool description adds no additional parameter guidance beyond what the schema provides. The schema itself sufficiently documents the 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 the specific verb 'Write' and identifies the resource as a file, clearly stating it creates or overwrites. This distinguishes it from siblings like find_file, read_file, and write_memory, which target different operations or storage types.

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 usage for creating/overwriting text files (as indicated by the tool name) but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like write_memory or edit tools. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance provided.

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