file_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'overwrite' which implies destructive behavior, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether overwriting is irreversible, file size limits, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient transparency.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second provides usage context. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 file write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but has significant gaps. It explains the basic purpose and usage context but lacks details about behavioral implications (destructiveness, permissions), error cases, or return values. The 100% schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., file path conventions, content formatting). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 or overwrite') and resource ('a file in the workspace'), distinguishing it from siblings like file_read (read-only) and file_edit (modify existing). It specifies both creation and overwriting behaviors, making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 clear context for when to use it ('when a skill needs to generate output files'), which helps differentiate from file_edit for modifications. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like file_edit for partial updates, leaving some guidance gaps.

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