Write content to a file on an opened remote target via a READY handle, automatically creating missing parent directories on SSH or Docker hosts.
Write content to a file on an opened remote target. Requires a READY handle. Automatically creates parent directories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Remote file path | |
| handle | Yes | READY target handle (e.g. target-1) | |
| content | Yes | Content to write into the file |
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 the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the READY-handle prerequisite and automatic parent-directory creation. It stops short of stating the most consequential behavior for a write tool — whether existing file content is overwritten or truncated, and whether the operation is reversible.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then the precondition, then the side benefit. No filler and no repetition of the field list.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover the mutation's side effects, and it omits the single most important one — overwrite behavior on an existing file. The auto-mkdir note is a nice addition, but an agent still cannot fully predict the state left behind.
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 100%, so handle, path, and content are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description's mention of a 'READY handle' reinforces the schema's handle semantics but adds no format or syntax detail beyond it.
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?
States a specific verb (write) and resource (file on a remote target) with the scope constraint that the target must be active. It is clearly distinct from a read tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling cascade_remote_edit, whose role (presumably partial/surgical edits vs full-content writes) an agent must infer.
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 prerequisite 'Requires a READY handle' gives a usable precondition for calling it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over cascade_remote_edit or cascade_remote_bash for modifying remote files, so the write-vs-edit decision is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.