Write a file in WSL

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (destructive, non-idempotent, open-world); the description adds behavior the annotations cannot convey - content bypasses the shell so quoting/escaping is not a concern, parent directories must pre-exist, and specific refusal conditions tied to profile and mount path. That is meaningful operational context beyond structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, no filler, and the core action plus the shell-bypass advantage are front-loaded before the constraints. Every sentence adds a distinct fact (capability, quoting safety, prerequisite, refusal conditions).

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?

With no output schema and complete parameter coverage, the description covers what remains: the write semantics, the safety-relevant refusal paths, and the alternative tool. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly or fall back to wsl_exec.

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%, so path, content, append, and session are already fully documented in structured data; the description's 'write or append' phrasing only restates the append parameter's meaning. Per the rubric, a 3 baseline is correct when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Write or append UTF-8 text to a file in the distro') and implicitly scopes it apart from wsl_upload and wsl_exec by emphasizing direct file writes rather than shell/file-transfer routes. An agent can distinguish it from all listed siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names an alternative and the condition to prefer this one: 'Prefer this over heredocs in wsl_exec.' It also states prerequisites (parent directories must exist) and refusal conditions (read-only profile, /mnt/<drive>/ without Windows-write permission), which is exactly the when/when-not guidance the dimension asks for.

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