vault_create_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it can create new files or overwrite existing ones, and it writes content atomically. However, it doesn't cover aspects like error handling (e.g., if the vault is full), permissions required, or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving gaps in behavioral context.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and scope, and the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently conveys essential information without redundancy.

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 complexity (a write operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and usage context but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error conditions or return values. For a mutation tool without annotations, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, focusing on usage instead. This meets the baseline for zero parameters, as it doesn't introduce unnecessary complexity.

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 ('Create a new file' and 'completely replace an existing file's content') and resource ('in the vault'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling 'vault_append_to_file' by emphasizing 'entire file content at once' versus partial updates, though it doesn't explicitly name all siblings like 'vault_patch_file'.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use ('when you want to write the entire file content at once'), which implicitly distinguishes it from 'vault_append_to_file' for partial updates. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to other siblings like 'vault_patch_file' or 'vault_get_file', and doesn't mention prerequisites like file existence or permissions.

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