file_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Đi qua cổng quyền ghi' (go through write permission gateway), implying a permission check, but does not explain overwrite behavior, directory creation, the effect of dry_run, or what the output schema contains. For a write operation, this is insufficient.

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 short – a single sentence. While conciseness is good, this is under-specification rather than efficient writing. It lacks structure and does not front-load critical details like parameters or behavior. It is short, but not well-structured.

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 that there are 4 parameters, an output schema (not described), and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of dry_run, the meaning of server='gateway', or what the response looks like. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without inspecting the schema further, and even then the schema lacks descriptions.

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%, meaning the description must explain all parameters. It does not mention path, content, server, or dry_run at all. The schema itself provides only titles, no descriptions. The agent has no additional meaning beyond the parameter names, which is very poor for a 4-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb ('Ghi file chữ' – write text file) and a clear target location (data/work or data/out). However, it does not distinguish this from sibling write tools like csv_write, json_write, or excel_write, which all write files but with different formats. The purpose is clear but not differentiated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that csv_write should be used for CSV files, json_write for JSON, etc. The description only states where to write, not why an agent would choose this tool over its siblings.

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