file_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: creating parent directories and the overwrite flag semantics. However, it does not state what happens when overwrite is false and the file already exists, nor does it mention return values or potential errors. This is partial disclosure.

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, each providing necessary information: the core action and the two behavioral modifiers (parent dir creation, overwrite). No redundant wording or 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?

While the description covers the main functionality, it lacks information on return values and error behavior when overwrite=false and the file exists. Since no output schema exists, the description should have explained these aspects to be fully complete.

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%, so the description doesn't need to repeat parameter details. It mentions 'content' implicitly and 'overwrite' explicitly, but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because schema handles the details.

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 'Write content to a text file' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like file_read, file_list, file_info, and file_search. It also mentions creating parent directories and overwrite behavior, further clarifying its unique role.

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 usage context: write text content, create parent directories as needed, and set overwrite to true to replace existing files. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the use case is unambiguous.

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