write_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Write files' and does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, whether directories are created, whether writes are atomic, or what failure behavior looks like. The sandbox scope is helpful but minimal.

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 no wasted words. It communicates the action and scope immediately, though additional behavioral details could improve it without much cost.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits important context such as overwrite behavior, return value, error cases, and path constraints. The simple schema and clear purpose make it minimally usable, but it is not complete enough for an agent to understand the full implications of writing files.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single `files` parameter, including path and content fields. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but because the schema covers the parameters well, the baseline of 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 states a clear action ('Write') and a specific resource ('files to the sandbox filesystem'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like read_files, list_files, and remove_files, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with execute_code or execute_command, which could also affect files.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use write_files versus alternatives such as execute_code or execute_command for file creation. The description does not state prerequisites, path restrictions, or when a direct file-write tool should be preferred over command execution.

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