Write text content to a file in OneDrive to save or share data.
Writes text content to a file in OneDrive.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "onedrive_write_file"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.352v3.0.341v3.0.165v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'writes' without disclosing whether it overwrites, creates, or appends, or what happens if the file does not exist. It lacks essential behavioral details for a mutating operation.
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 sentence, but it is too concise to be useful. It omits necessary details about file identification and content, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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?
The description is incomplete given the tool's complexity and lack of parameters. It does not specify the target file or content source, leaving critical gaps. An agent cannot determine how to invoke this tool correctly.
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 no parameters, and the description adds no meaning beyond the empty schema. It fails to explain how the target file and text content are specified, which is critical for correct invocation.
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 ('Writes text content') and resource ('file in OneDrive'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like onedrive_read_file or onedrive_delete_file. However, it does not specify how to identify the target file, which is a minor omission.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites or context for usage are provided. The tool is the only OneDrive write tool, but the description does not clarify when writing is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.