sandbox_file_write

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly states the tool creates parent directories and overwrites existing files, which are important behaviors beyond the typical file write. No contradictions with annotations as none exist.

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 only two short sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and then provide key behavioral details. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given that the tool has 3 required parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema (so return format is not expected to be detailed), and sibling tools exist for related operations, the description is complete enough. It covers behavior (overwrite, directory creation) that is critical for safe usage.

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 already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (sandboxId, path, content) with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Write content' and resource 'file in a sandbox', clearly indicating the action. The sibling tools sandbox_file_read, sandbox_file_remove, etc. are distinct, so it is well differentiated.

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 mentions 'Creates parent directories automatically. Overwrites if file exists.' which implies when to use (writing new or existing files) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. It is adequate but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like sandbox_file_mkdir or sandbox_file_read.

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