write

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

The description adds atomicity and the implementation detail of 'temp file + os.replace' beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It also explicitly mentions overwrite, which gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's behavior and safety profile.

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 that states the core purpose and implementation detail without any filler. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core behavior and atomicity. There is no missing critical information.

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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters (path and content) with meaningful descriptions. The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 creates or overwrites a file atomically, using a specific verb ('create/overwrite') and resource ('file'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'edit' (which implies modifying existing files) and 'bash' (which could write via shell) by emphasizing atomic write behavior.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'edit' or 'bash'. It only defines the action without mentioning use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when atomic file writing is preferred.

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