write_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors (encoding options, modes, directory creation) but omits details like default mode, permissions, or error handling. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with the primary purpose, then details. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, encoding, mode, and directory creation. It misses only minor details like return value or error scenarios, which is acceptable 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?

The input schema covers all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the description's value is supplementary. It adds context about parent directory creation and summarizes encodings/modes, providing meaningful clarification beyond the schema definitions.

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 'Write content to a file', enumerates supported encodings (UTF-8, base64), modes (overwrite, append), and an additional behavior (creates parent directories). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file or delete_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 implies usage for writing files but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or comparisons with siblings.

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