Create a new file at a specified path, creating any missing parent directories while refusing to overwrite an existing file.
Create a brand-new file, and any missing parent directories. Refuses to overwrite an existing one — use replace_text or apply to modify existing content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | File path to create. | |
| content | Yes | File content. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.12Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation destructiveHint:false is consistent with the 'refuses to overwrite' behavior, and the description adds key operational details: automatic parent-directory creation and refusal to overwrite. It does not mention what happens on attempt to overwrite (e.g., error type), but for a file creation tool this is adequate. No contradiction.
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 concise sentences with no redundant wording. The refusal to overwrite and the alternative tools are front-loaded, making the most important usage constraint immediately visible.
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 two-parameter file creation tool with a fully descriptive schema and a clear annotation, everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present: purpose, behavior, and alternatives. No output schema is needed for a void operation, and the description covers the key edge case (overwrite).
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (path, content) are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format constraints or default behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics.
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 ('create'), names the resource ('file'), and adds crucial behavior ('any missing parent directories', 'refuses to overwrite'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to replace_text and apply for modifying existing content, making it clear what this tool is for.
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 clearly states when to use this tool (creating a brand-new file) and when not to (if the file exists, use replace_text or apply). This explicit alternation gives an agent unambiguous selection criteria without needing to inspect sibling schemas.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.