Write File

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description reinforces with the overwrite warning. The description adds specific behavioral traits: creates directories if missing and the overwrite warning. However, it doesn't detail behavior on failure (e.g., partial writes) or concurrency issues. With annotations present, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 concise with clear sections for args, returns, and warnings. It front-loads the core purpose. A minor improvement: the warning could be more prominent (e.g., bold). Still, it's efficient and well-structured.

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 (4 params, no output schema, destructive nature), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, required vs. optional params, and the overwrite risk. It could mention that the return value includes file size or error details, but omission is acceptable. No output schema reduces the need for return value details.

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 100% with each parameter having a description. The description mirrors the schema without adding new semantic context. For example, it repeats 'append' and 'create_dirs' descriptions but doesn't explain when to use append vs. overwrite or the implications of create_dirs=true (e.g., risk of creating unintended directories). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'writes content to a file' and specifies 'creates the file if it does not exist'. This distinguishes it from siblings like fc_edit_file (modifies) and fc_delete_file (removes).

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 explicit warnings about overwriting and optional parameters. However, it doesn't specify when to use this vs. sibling tools like fc_edit_file or fc_copy. The warning implies careful use, but alternatives are not named.

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