write_file

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool both creates and overwrites files, which is key, but fails to mention that overwriting is silent, whether directories are auto-created, or any constraints (e.g., text-only). This leaves gaps in understanding the destructive nature.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and context. No wasted words, making it optimal for quick comprehension.

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 tool with three perfectly documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it could be more complete by mentioning overwrite behavior (no prompt) and that it only handles text files. The Godot project context is helpful given sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter names and descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only specifying that the file is a text file in a Godot project. 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 clearly states the verb 'Create or overwrite' and the resource 'text file in a Godot project'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like read_file and other file manipulation tools.

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 implies when to use the tool (for creating or overwriting text files in a Godot project) but offers no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use it. No comparison with siblings such as read_file is provided.

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