tf_write_file

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that writes go into a sandboxed workspace, which is useful, but it does not mention whether the write overwrites an existing file, how paths are validated, or what side effects occur. The core write behavior is clear, but edge behaviors are not.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the operation, resource type, and usage context with zero waste. The parenthetical adds relevant context without redundancy.

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 three-parameter write tool, the description gives enough to understand the primary action. However, it omits return value behavior, overwrite semantics, and path restrictions. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, these omissions are noticeable but not fatal for a straightforward write operation.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it gives no parameter-level detail. The parameter names (workspaceId, relativePath, content) are self-explanatory and the tool name reinforces the write-file purpose, but the description does not define path semantics or content formatting.

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 (Writes) and resource (.tf/.tfvars file), and scopes the write to a sandboxed workspace. This clearly differentiates it from all sibling tf_* workflow tools, none of which perform file writes.

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 parenthetical '(for agents with no native filesystem access)' gives an explicit condition for when this tool is appropriate. It does not name alternatives or exclusion cases, but no sibling tool competes for the same write-file role, so the guidance is sufficient.

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