Write File

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the environment (VPS via SFTP), path resolution rules, the side effect of creating parent directories, and the auth requirement (SSH or DDEV). It omits critical write semantics such as overwrite behavior for existing files and permission implications, so it is only partially complete.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information (action, path rule, side effect, prerequisite) with the core action front-loaded. No filler, though the cautionary sentence is the least informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Given a simple two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the environment, auth, path semantics, and a side effect, leaving only overwrite behavior unaddressed. Reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully clarifies the 'path' parameter ('relative to OpenCart root unless absolute'), which is the non-obvious one. The 'content' parameter is left entirely unexplained, though its meaning is largely self-evident from the tool name.

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 and resource ('Write content to a file') plus the transport mechanism (SFTP) and target environment (VPS), which is more than a tautology. It implicitly distinguishes from the read counterpart get_file. However, it never explicitly names siblings or scope limits beyond the path resolution note, so it falls just short of the top score.

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 gives a precondition ('Requires SSH or DDEV') and a vague warning ('Use with caution'), which implies when it is applicable. It does not state when to prefer it over alternatives such as update_setting or when a write is unnecessary. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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