file_write

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

The description discloses key behavioral modes (create, overwrite, append), which gives some transparency about side effects (e.g., overwriting destroys previous content). However, with no annotations, it does not mention permissions, prerequisites (like required directories), return behavior, or error handling. It is minimal but provides a basic sense of what happens.

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 a single, concise, front-loaded sentence. It conveys the core action ('Writes text to a local file') and the three modes in a compact, readable format. Every word earns its place with no wasted content.

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?

The tool is presented with an empty schema, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must carry all context. It explains the basic operation and modes but fails to provide any information on how to specify the file path or content, or what the tool expects as inputs. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly based solely on this description.

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?

The input schema is empty (0 properties), which gives a baseline of 4 per the rubric. The description does not add parameter names or types, but it does imply the conceptual inputs (text, file destination) and modes. Since there are no parameters to document, the description is not penalized for missing 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 clearly states the tool writes text to a local file with explicit modes (create, overwrite, append). It uses a specific verb and resource ('Writes text to a local file') and distinguishes itself from siblings like file_read or file_list by indicating it performs writes, not reads or listings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention contexts such as needing to create a new file, update an existing one, or append data, nor does it reference sibling tools like file_read or gdrive_write_file. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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