Create Files

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

Beyond the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations, the description discloses additional key behaviors: it creates parent directories, silently overwrites existing files, enforces a 100-file limit, and has no single-path convenience form. This gives the agent a full safety picture.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, the exact input shape, and the overwrite warning. The most important constraint is front-loaded and there is no redundant filler.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers invocation shape, limits, side effects, and safety guidance. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents files, path, and content well, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by stating the exact required array shape 'files: [{ path, content }]' and explicitly ruling out a single-path invocation, which helps avoid incorrect calls.

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 a specific action (create one or more files) and resource (files with path/content), and distinguishes the batch-only shape with 'there is no single-path form.' It is easy to tell apart from siblings like edit, patch, and 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 provides clear context: use this to create files, and know that it overwrites existing content. It advises reading first when preservation matters, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like edit or patch for modifying existing files.

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