fs_write_textWrite or replace UTF-8 text files with scoped paths and optional transaction validation for compile-safe changes.
Create or replace a UTF-8 text file. main.cs requires fs_transaction with a compile validation command. Accepts absolute paths when RACCOON_FILESYSTEM_UNRESTRICTED=1; relative paths start at RACCOON_ROOT.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| deviceId | No | ||
| deviceName | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and 'Create or replace' is consistent with that overwrite semantics. The description adds value beyond the annotations by explaining path resolution (absolute paths gated behind RACCOON_FILESYSTEM_UNRESTRICTED=1, relative paths rooted at RACCOON_ROOT) and the validation requirement for main.cs. It does not describe encoding edge cases or atomicity, so it stops short of 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?
Three compact sentences with the core action front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct information (action, validation constraint, path rules). The middle main.cs sentence is tersely phrased but not wasteful.
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 destructive write tool with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers path resolution and one special-case constraint, which is helpful. It still omits any explanation of the device parameters and content handling, so gaps remain for an agent calling it 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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only partially covers the `file` parameter via the absolute/relative path rules. The `content`, `deviceId`, and `deviceName` parameters are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving most of the surface unexplained.
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 opening sentence gives a specific verb+resource: 'Create or replace a UTF-8 text file,' which is clear and scoped. However, it does not differentiate itself from near-identical siblings such as write_file, fs_write_chunk, or fs_write_many, so an agent still needs schema inspection to pick correctly.
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?
It routes one specific case away from this tool: editing main.cs should go through fs_transaction with a compile validation command. That is a genuine when-not-use/alternative signal, but it covers only a single file and offers no general guidance on when to prefer this over the other write tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.