write_text_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses directory creation and UTF-8 encoding, but omits critical behaviors: whether write overwrites or truncates, file permission requirements, error handling, and size limits. Provides some context but not comprehensive.

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 sentence with a front-loaded verb (Write or append) and resource (UTF-8 text file). It efficiently conveys core functionality without extraneous words.

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 3 parameters, the description lacks details on overwrite semantics, error conditions, path handling, and return values. For a write operation, more behavioral context is needed to ensure safe and correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds encoding context (UTF-8) and directory creation behavior, but does not explain individual parameters like path (relative vs absolute), content format, or append behavior beyond the implicit meaning. Minimal added value over schema.

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 or appends UTF-8 text files and creates parent directories if needed. It distinguishes from sibling read_text_file by specifying write/append operations, and from apply_patch which modifies files differently.

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 implies usage for creating or modifying text files but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It fails to mention alternatives like apply_patch or read_text_file for specific scenarios. Usage context is only implied.

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