Code MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Write content to a file' implies a mutation operation but lacks critical details: whether it overwrites existing files, creates new ones, requires specific permissions, handles errors (e.g., invalid paths), or affects file metadata. This is inadequate for a tool with potential destructive effects.

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 with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Write content to a file'), making it immediately scannable and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (overwrite behavior, error handling), usage guidelines, and output expectations. Given the potential for file system changes and sibling tools like 'read_file' and 'delete_file', more guidance is needed to ensure safe and correct use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter documentation ('path' and 'content'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as path format expectations (absolute vs. relative) or content encoding. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Write content to a file' clearly states the verb ('write') and resource ('file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_file' (reading) and 'delete_file' (deletion), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other file-modification tools like 'move_file' or 'apply_patch'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file permissions, existing vs. new files), when not to use it (e.g., for appending vs. overwriting), or how it relates to siblings like 'create_directory' for path setup or 'read_file' for verification.

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