Create or replace a UTF-8 file in a task's isolated Git worktree or host OS using relative or absolute paths.
Create or replace a UTF-8 file. Relative paths use the Task worktree; absolute paths use the host OS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| task_id | Yes | ||
| overwrite | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0-dev.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the operation can replace a fileainer and specifies UTF-8 encoding and path resolution. However, it does not disclose the behavior of the optional overwrite parameter, failure modes, or side effects beyond replacement.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and path resolution details are placed in a single clarifying second sentence.
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 destructive file-writing tool with no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema, this is incomplete. The most important gap is overwrite semantics, and the description also fails to clarify task_id or when to prefer file.write over file.patch.
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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to path (relative vs absolute) and content (UTF-8), but task_id and especially overwrite are left undefined. The overwrite parameter is central to the create-vs-replace behavior yet receives no explanation.
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 states a clear verb and resource: create or replace a UTF-8 file. It is specific enough to be recognizable as a write tool, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling file.patch or file.search.
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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over file.patch or other siblings. It explains path semantics but never states the intended use cases, exclusions, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.