Create Text File

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies that the tool can overwrite existing files and returns success/failure messages. Annotations already indicate it's not read-only and is destructive, but the description enhances this by specifying the overwrite behavior and output format, though it could mention more about error handling or side 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly convey the core functionality and outcome. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant or extraneous information, making it highly efficient for agent 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (a destructive write operation with 2 parameters), annotations covering safety aspects, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the action and result, though it could benefit from more usage context or error details to be fully comprehensive.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents both parameters ('relative_path' and 'content'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as path formatting or content encoding examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Write a new file or overwrite an existing file') and resource ('file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'replace_content' or 'write_memory', which could have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'replace_content' for modifying existing files or 'write_memory' for other storage, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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