Write File

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Write content to a file' implies a mutation operation, it lacks critical details: whether this overwrites existing files or creates new ones, what happens on errors (e.g., permission denied), if there are rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information about the tool's function.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral traits (overwrite vs. create, error handling), return values, or usage context. Given the complexity of file operations and the lack of structured data, the description should provide more guidance to be fully helpful.

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%, with both parameters (filename and content) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., file path conventions, content encoding, or size limits). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and target resource ('to a file in the shared workspace'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like file_read (read operation) and file_list (listing operation). However, it doesn't specify whether this overwrites existing files or creates new ones, which would make it more specific.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for appending vs. overwriting), or how it relates to siblings like file_read or create_task. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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