Create a new file at a specified path with provided content, automatically creating missing parent directories. Refuses to overwrite existing files, ensuring safe file creation.
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.
v0.0.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behaviors: creating missing directories, refusing to overwrite, and directing to alternatives. It doesn't cover error handling or return values, but for a simple file-creation tool, the critical behaviors are transparent.
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 with zero waste. The purpose is stated first, followed by a critical behavioral constraint and alternative tools. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.
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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential information: what it creates, the side effect of creating parent directories, the overwrite refusal, and alternatives. An agent has everything needed to invoke 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning, but it's not needed given the schema's clarity. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool creates a brand-new file and creates missing parent directories. It also explicitly names alternatives (replace_text, apply) for modifying existing content, distinguishing it from siblings like apply and replace_text.
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 says it refuses to overwrite existing files and directs the agent to use replace_text or apply for existing content. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.