put_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive 'overwrite entire content' behavior and the create-if-not-exists edge case. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as confirmation prompts, atomicity, or return values, which could be relevant 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a key edge case. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy 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?

For a simple file write tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the main edge case sufficiently. It lacks usage guidance, but that is captured in a separate dimension, so overall it is complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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%, with all three parameters (content, vaultId, filepath) adequately described in the schema itself. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is 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 uses the specific verb 'Overwrite' with the resource 'entire content of a file', clearly stating the exact operation. It also notes file creation if missing, which distinguishes it from siblings like append_content and patch_content that imply partial modification.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It implies use for full replacement but does not mention that append_content or patch_content should be used for partial edits, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names rather than explicit direction.

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