write_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does explicitly state the destructive overwrite behavior, which is critical for a mutation tool. However, it omits other important details such as whether parent directories are created, what happens on failure, or any permission requirements, leaving a moderate transparency gap.

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 a single, clear sentence. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.

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 simplicity of the tool and rich schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not mention return values or error behavior (since no output schema exists), and it lacks usage guidance relative to sibling tools. It meets the minimum viable standard but leaves some gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema—it mentions 'text content' but the schema already describes content as 'Text content to write into the file.' No additional parameter meaning is supplied.

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 ('Create'/'overwrite') and explicit resource ('file'), making the tool's primary function unmistakable. It also naturally distinguishes this from sibling tools like read_file and edit_file by focusing solely on writing full text content.

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 clearly states the two use cases (create new or overwrite existing), giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for incremental edits, use edit_file'), so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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