write_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It warns about destructive overwriting and notes the approval requirement, which is critical safety and operational information. It does not describe return values or edge cases, so a perfect score is not warranted.

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?

Two sentences that front-load the warning and purpose, with no wasted words. The alternative and approval requirement are briefly noted.

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 behavior, the destructive nature, an alternative, and the approval requirement. Missing return value or error context, but no output schema exists and the tool is straightforward. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly, but not exhaustive.

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% with terse descriptions. The tool description adds some context by clarifying that content is the full file content and that the target is a remote server, but it does not provide detailed per-parameter semantics beyond that. Baseline for high coverage is 3.

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 overwrites an entire file on a remote server via SFTP, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from replace_in_file by warning about full content replacement.

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 explicitly directs users to replace_in_file for surgical edits on large files, providing a clear alternative. The approval requirement also sets expectations for when this tool can be used.

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