write_file

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

Without annotations, the description provides some behavioral details: it creates parent directories if needed, overwrites completely, and only works within allowed directories. It does not mention error handling, permissions, or return values.

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 short and front-loaded with key information. It efficiently conveys the tool's action and constraints in two sentences plus a list, with no wasted words.

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 potentially destructive write operation with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, success/failure indicators, or error conditions, which are important for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 already describes both parameters (path and content) with full coverage. The description does not add substantial meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it creates or overwrites a file with new content. The verb 'create' and 'overwrite' are specific, but it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'edit_file' which might partially modify a file.

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 cautions 'Use with caution' and specifies allowed directories, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edit_file' for partial modifications.

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