Creates or overwrites a text file in the root directory, with an optional append mode to add content instead.
写入文本文件(新建或覆盖;append=true 追加)。仅限根目录内。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| append | No | ||
| content | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior beyond the schema: overwrite semantics, the additive append mode, and the root-directory sandbox restriction. It omits permissions, encoding, failure/error behavior and whether directory paths are auto-created, so it is only partially complete.
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?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the action, the mode variants, and the scope constraint with no waste. Slightly telegraphic, but structurally efficient.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described. For a mutation tool with zero annotations and zero schema-description coverage, the description is adequate but leaves real gaps (path resolution rules, error behavior, overwrite confirmation) that could matter to an agent calling it correctly.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the append parameter's meaning effectively, but leaves path (relative to root? format? overwrite target resolution) and content (encoding) unelaborated. Partial compensation only.
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?
Names a specific verb (写入/write) and resource (文本文件/text file), and clarifies the two modes (新建或覆盖 vs append). It is readily distinguishable from read_file, list_dir and search. It stops short of a full 5 because sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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 gives the append=true trigger condition, which is the main branch point for this tool. However there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives (though no write sibling exists). Usage is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.