Write UTF-8 text files to allowed folders. Existing files require overwrite=true to replace them.
Create a UTF-8 file in an allowed folder. Existing files require overwrite=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| overwrite | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail (existing files need overwrite=true), but omits what happens on failure, what 'allowed folder' means, and any permission requirements.
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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the overwrite caveat following. Nothing redundant.
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 write tool with no output schema and no annotated description, it covers the essentials (create, UTF-8, allowed-folder scope, overwrite gate). It leaves the concept of 'allowed folder', error behavior, and return format 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 0% with 3 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It explains overwrite's role and behavior, but path and text are left to their names and constraints (maxLength, minLength) are undocumented anywhere.
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 ('Create a UTF-8 file') plus a scoping constraint ('in an allowed folder'), which clearly separates it from read-only siblings like apple_files_read_text. It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly, but the action is unambiguous.
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 note 'Existing files require overwrite=true' gives a usage rule for the overwrite case, but there is no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance (e.g., versus apple_textedit_create or apple_files_copy). Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.