write_file

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: automatic creation of missing files/parent directories, and full overwriting of existing content. Since no annotations are provided, these details are crucial and are adequately covered. It also constrains the path to be workspace-relative.

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 concise, consisting of a one-sentence overview plus brief parameter explanations. No redundant information is present; every sentence is informative.

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, the description adequately covers the core behavior: writing content, handling missing paths, and overwriting semantics. The presence of an output schema means return values are already specified externally, so no additional return-value detail is needed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: path is relative to workspace, and content is the text to write (overwriting existing). This provides essential meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 the action: writing text content into a workspace file, with specific mention of auto-creating missing paths and overwriting existing content. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file and list_directory.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., when not to use). While the tool's function is implied, there is no direct guidance on choosing it over read_file or list_directory, though the context is clear.

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