write_file

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, which is consistent with "Write." The description usefully adds the sandbox constraint that writes cannot escape the project folder, but it omits key mutation behavior: whether an existing file at the same path is overwritten, whether parent directories are created, and what encoding is used.

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?

Two short sentences with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. The scope constraint follows immediately and nothing is repeated from the name.

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 write tool with no output schema, zero schema descriptions, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description leaves important gaps: overwrite semantics, return value, and path rules. The one genuinely helpful addition is the project-folder containment rule, but that alone is not enough.

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% for all three parameters, so the description must carry the load and mostly does not. It never mentions the "path" parameter (which has a default of page.html and unclear subdirectory rules), nor clarifies that "project" selects the target container and "content" is the literal text written.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Write a text file") plus its container ("inside a project"), so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not name or distinguish read_file, the obvious sibling, but the write-vs-read distinction is clear from the verb.

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?

"for clients with no file tools of their own" gives a conditional usage cue, and "Cannot write outside the project folder" bounds the operation. However, there is no explicit routing against siblings like read_file, add_media, or new_project, and no guidance on when writing is inappropriate.

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