finder_write_file

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

Annotations already declare the write/safe/idempotent profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds real value beyond them: the no-overwrite guarantee and UTF-8 encoding are behavior an agent must know before invoking. It omits error semantics (what happens when the file exists) and approval-related behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carries the core semantics, with version and permission notes bracketed at the end. It is efficient, though the bracketed metadata is marginally useful to an agent selecting a tool.

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?

Given an output schema exists and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies the key non-schema facts (encoding, no-overwrite, permissions: none). The main gap is the failure mode when a file already exists and how the approval flow interacts with the call.

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% – path, content, _approvalId, and _idempotencyKey are all documented in the schema, including the reuse rule for the idempotency key. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Create UTF-8 text file" gives a specific verb plus the exact resource and encoding, which separates it from siblings like finder_create_directory or finder_copy_file. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 only usage signal is the implicit constraint that it will not overwrite existing files, which hints at a failure case but names no alternative tool for overwriting or for reading an existing file. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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