fs_write_text

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

With no annotations, the description falls short. It does not disclose default overwrite behavior, the effect of the append parameter, or charset handling. The agent cannot infer side effects or required permissions from 'Write text content to file.' alone.

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 concise at 4 words, but conciseness comes at the expense of necessary information. It would benefit from adding context about append and charset without becoming verbose.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, error conditions, or file creation behavior, which are critical for an AI agent to use the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no parameter-level details. It fails to explain the meaning of file_path, text, append, or charset, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names and types.

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 'Write text content to file.' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like fs_write_binary (binary data) and fs_create_file (empty file creation), but does not explicitly differentiate from fs_read_full_text or fs_file_replace, which are for different operations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like fs_create_file (if file doesn't exist) or fs_append_text (if such exists). Does not mention that this tool will overwrite by default when append=false, nor any prerequisites or conditions.

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