write

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that duplicates are blocked and similar content triggers warnings. This clarifies the tool's safety profile, especially since annotations mark it as destructive (destructiveHint=true). It provides insight into the exact conditions under which the tool refuses or cautions, which is not evident from the schema or annotations alone.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. However, the first sentence ('Write file.') is a near-tautology of the tool name, adding little value. The second sentence is informative and earns its place, but the overall structure could be more efficient by merging the core action with the behavior.

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 simple two-parameter tool and the presence of annotations, the description covers the key behavior but misses important context. It does not mention what happens on success (e.g., return value) or clarify how the 'warns on similarity' mechanism works. It also fails to differentiate from 'edit', leaving an agent uncertain about which tool to invoke for existing files. This is a moderate gap for a tool that is otherwise straightforward.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with clear descriptions ('Code to write' and 'Absolute file path'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing the semantics.

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 verb 'write' with the resource 'file', clearly indicating the tool's action. It adds behavioral specifics ('Blocks if duplicate exists, warns on similarity') that hint at its safe-write niche, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'edit', which likely also handles file modifications.

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 this tool is for writing new files without overwriting existing ones, and it warns on similar content. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer 'write' over 'edit' or when not to use it (e.g., if overwriting is intended). This leaves the usage context somewhat implicit.

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