Write File

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it specifies complete overwrite, lack of warning, handling of text encoding, and directory restrictions. This aligns with annotations (destructiveHint true, idempotentHint true) and provides actionable behavioral details.

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 concise with three sentences: first states primary action, second warns about caution, third adds handling and constraints. No redundant or missing information.

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 description covers purpose, caution, and constraints. It assumes output schema documents return values. However, parameter details are sparse, and error conditions are not mentioned. Still adequate for a simple write tool with annotations.

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 descriptions are missing (0% coverage). The description only implies path and content, but does not explain file path format, encoding specifics, or content constraints (e.g., size limits). This is insufficient given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Create a new file or completely overwrite an existing file with new content,' which provides a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like edit_file (which modifies partially) and create_directory.

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 warns about overwriting without warning and mentions the constraint of working only within allowed directories. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives like edit_file for partial updates.

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