Prepare remote file write

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

The description says 'Preview writing or appending', which contradicts the annotation destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. If the tool actually writes, calling it a 'preview' is misleading; if it only previews, the destructive annotation is wrong. This is a serious contradiction that obscures the tool's true destructive behavior.

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 concise sentence with no fluff, which is efficient. However, the brevity contributes to the ambiguity around 'Preview', so it is not flawless.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and conflicting annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to clarify overwrite/append semantics, path restrictions, or return values, leaving major gaps for an agent to operate 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter-level detail. It does not explain the semantics of append versus overwrite, the meaning of path, or content constraints like maxLength, leaving agents to infer critical behavior from names alone.

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 tool writes or appends a UTF-8 text file within configured remote roots, which distinguishes it from read_file and list_files. However, the verb 'Preview' introduces ambiguity about whether the tool actually performs the write or merely simulates it, preventing a perfect score.

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 context by mentioning 'configured remote roots', implying the tool is scoped to specific directories. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like manage_files, transfer_files, or run_command, nor does it give exclusions, so guidance is only implied.

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