write_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses mode (overwrite/append) and that parent directories are created, but lacks details on error handling, file locking, atomicity, or encoding guarantees. Adequate 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?

Two sentences, no excess. Front-loaded with main action, then concise usage warning. Every word adds value.

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 3 params and output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects (mode, dir creation, usage caution). Minor missing details like error conditions or concurrency behavior, but mostly complete.

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 description must compensate. It adds meaning for mode (default and options), path (under workspace), and content (UTF-8). However, it lacks details on path constraints, content size limits, or format of mode enum. Partial compensation.

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?

Clearly states the verb (write/append), resource (UTF-8 text under workspace), and mode distinction. Differentiates from siblings like read_file and edit_file through the write/append and create parent dirs functionality.

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?

Explicitly warns not to use without reading first unless creating a new file or holding exact contents, providing clear when-to-use guidance. Could be improved by explicitly contrasting with edit_file, but still effective.

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