Write local file

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

With destructiveHint already provided by annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: it can overwrite existing content, append, and create parent directories only when requested. It also signals that the responsible pattern is to verify important writes afterward.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the operation, then adds the important parent-folder behavior and verification recommendation.

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?

The description covers the core write semantics, the optional parent-directory creation, and the verification mechanism despite the lack of an output schema. It is slightly incomplete because it does not mention encoding behavior or success/error semantics, though the schema covers the parameter values.

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%, but the description clarifies the meanings of overwrite/append behavior and the createParents behavior. However, encoding is left entirely to the schema and the description does not explain why or when to choose encoding options.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'Create, overwrite, or append to any local file.' This clearly defines the operation type and resource scope, making it easy to distinguish from read-focused siblings like read_file and path_info.

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?

It gives clear guidance on when verifying results is appropriate by recommending read_file or path_info after important writes. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer write_file over alternatives like edit_file or file_operation.

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