write_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does mention the unusual 'show it being typed and saved' animation, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose whether the tool overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, or what happens on failure. For a simple write operation, this is partial 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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('write a UTF-8 text file') and then adds the visual detail. Every word earns its place; it is appropriately brief for a straightforward tool.

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?

The tool is simple (3 parameters, no output schema), and the description covers the basic purpose and a unique behavior. However, it omits overwrite semantics and does not explicitly differentiate from edit_file, which is important context for correct selection. Given the tool's low complexity, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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% – all three parameters (path, content, create_parent_directories) have descriptions. The tool description adds no new information about parameters, only restating 'UTF-8' which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full load.

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 uses a specific verb ('write') and resource ('UTF-8 text file'), and adds a distinctive visual behavior ('show it being typed and saved on the virtual computer') that sets it apart from siblings like read_file and edit_file. An agent can immediately tell this tool creates a new file with visual feedback rather than reading or editing.

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 implies this tool is for writing new files, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus edit_file or terminal_execute. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from sibling names rather than receive direct guidance.

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