file_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the create-if-missing behavior but omits the default overwrite semantics (append=false), permission requirements, and the destructive potential of overwriting an existing file. This is a minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with two clauses, front-loading the action 'Write content to a file' with no wasted words. Every part earns its place.

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 write operation with full schema parameter coverage, the description adequately conveys purpose and a key behavioral trait. It lacks usage comparison to file-patching siblings and explicit overwrite behavior, but the tool is simple enough that these are minor gaps.

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 100%, so the parameters (path, content, append) are already fully described in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the creation context, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Write' and resource 'file on the OpenWrt router', and explicitly notes creation behavior if the file doesn't exist. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like file_read, file_list, and file_delete.

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 implies usage (when you need to write content to a file) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives such as file_patch or sed tools for targeted edits. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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