write_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the useful behavior of automatically creating parent directories, but it omits important aspects such as overwrite behavior, error handling, permissions, and side effects. For a mutation tool, this is only partially transparent.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds a key behavior in the second sentence, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple file write operation with three fully described parameters, the description is adequate but has gaps. It lacks information about return values, error conditions, or what happens if the file already exists (overwrite vs. append). This is a significant behavioral detail that should be disclosed.

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 schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions, providing a baseline of 3. The tool description adds value by clarifying that content is 'text' (implying not binary) and that parent directories will be created automatically for the path, which goes slightly beyond the schema's description.

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 verb ('Write') and resource ('text content to a file in a sandbox'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like read_file, list_files, and run_command. It also adds a specific behavioral feature (auto-creating parent directories), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 makes it clear this tool is used to write files within a sandbox, which is distinct from reading files (read_file) or listing files (list_files). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is sufficient and there are no exclusions.

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