Write File

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

With only destructiveHint=false in annotations, the description carries most of the burden and does so well: it discloses that writing to an existing path creates a new version, that earlier versions are retained and restorable, and that changes are externally observable via get_data_updates. Permissions or size limits are not addressed, but the non-destructive versioning behavior is clearly consistent with the annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by two sentences of genuinely useful behavioral context. No filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers versioning, recovery via restore_file, and cross-agent visibility, giving an agent enough to call it correctly; only auth/permission expectations are unaddressed.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds path-specific meaning beyond the schema by explaining what happens when the path already exists (new version rather than overwrite). Parameter type/format details are still left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (write a text file) and the target scope (the user's Fulcra account). This plainly distinguishes it from siblings like read_file, list_files, and delete_file without needing to open any schema.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use motivation (files as a way to pass data between agents) and routes to related siblings (restore_file, read_file, get_data_updates). It lacks an explicit when-not or a stated alternative for other write paths, so it stops short of a 5.

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