write_file

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true). The description adds valuable context: path-traversal guarding and the side effect of refreshing the editor filesystem, which goes beyond the raw annotation hints.

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 that front-loads the core action and includes key constraints and side effects. Every part earns its place with no wasted words.

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 simple two-parameter file-writing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: target locations, safety behavior, and a side effect. It could mention that it overwrites existing files, but this is implied by 'write' and the destructiveHint annotation.

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 schema provides only parameter names (path, content) with no descriptions. The description partially compensates by specifying the allowed locations (res://, user://) and the path-traversal guard, adding meaning to 'path'. It does not describe 'content', but that is fairly self-explanatory.

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 tool writes a text file under res:// or user://, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling write_script, but the mention of 'text file' versus script implies a difference.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like write_script. The description focuses on what it does rather than when to choose it over other file-writing siblings.

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