write_file

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

The description explicitly mentions 'overwrite', disclosing that existing files can be replaced, which is a key destructive behavior. With no annotations provided, this is important, but the description lacks additional behavioral context such as path handling, directory creation, or error behavior.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the primary purpose. The second sentence adds a relevant workflow warning without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description covers the core function and an important execution workflow rule. Since an output schema exists, return values are likely documented there. However, the description omits guidance on when to prefer write_file over edit_file for existing-file modifications, leaving some contextual 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?

The input schema defines only path and content with no descriptions, and the description provides no additional parameter semantics. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the zero schema coverage.

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 tool's function with the verb 'write/overwrite' and identifies the resource as 'a file on the user's machine.' It distinguishes itself from run_code by warning against using run_code for the same code, but it does not explicitly contrast with edit_file, a sibling tool for file modification.

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 provides a specific workflow tip: after writing code, use run_file to execute it and avoid run_code. However, it does not offer broader guidance on when to choose write_file over edit_file or other file-related tools, leaving usage context partially unspecified.

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