Write a file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that missing folders are created and that writes are atomic, but it does not explicitly say whether an existing file is overwritten or what happens to prior content, which is important for a write operation.

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 two short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place by conveying scope, folder creation, and atomicity without waste.

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 write tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key non-obvious behaviors: remote targeting, folder creation, and atomicity. It is slightly incomplete because it does not explicitly state overwrite semantics, which matters for a full-file write.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only broad context ('here or on another machine') and does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 specific verb and resource ('Write a whole file') and explicitly distinguishes whole-file writing from partial editing. It also states the scope ('here or on another machine'), letting an agent differentiate it from siblings such as herdr_file_edit.

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 phrase 'whole file' implies this should be used when replacing full content rather than editing part of a file, but it does not explicitly name herdr_file_edit or state when to choose one over the other. Usage is inferable but not directly stated.

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