write_file

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals safety restrictions (safe mode paths, blocked directories) which are critical. However, it omits details like whether existing files are overwritten, if parent directories are created, or any return value, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately follow with crucial safety constraints. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity of a write operation and no output schema, the description adequately covers safety and high-level purpose. However, it lacks specifics on error handling, success indication, or edge cases (e.g., content size, encoding), which would be beneficial for an AI agent.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions are already clear. The description adds no extra information about parameters (e.g., default server behavior, path format, content restrictions), so it neither harms nor significantly improves understanding beyond 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?

The description clearly states 'Write content to a file' with specificity, and distinguishes from siblings like read_file and copy_file by focusing on writing. The addition of safety restrictions further clarifies the scope.

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 warns that the operation is dangerous and specifies safe mode constraints and blocked system directories. It provides clear context for when to use the tool but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like using copy_file for duplicating files.

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