write_file

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

The description explicitly states 'creates or overwrites', which is the key behavioral trait, especially important given no annotations are provided. This discloses the destructive overwrite behavior, adding value beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It immediately communicates the action and the key nuance (creates or overwrites) without any redundant information.

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 tool, the combination of description and fully-described schema is mostly complete. It covers the main purpose and behavior, though it could mention the default of create_dirs, but that is already in the schema. No output schema exists, so return values are not needed.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The schema already explains path, content, and create_dirs adequately.

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 'Write content to a file on the VPS (creates or overwrites)' uses a clear verb (write) and resource (file on the VPS), explicitly distinguishing this tool from siblings like read_file and list_directory. It precisely states the action and 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 implies usage by its nature (write vs read), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusion criteria. With siblings like read_file, the contrast is clear but not stated.

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