write_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a write/mutation operation implicitly by 'replace', but does not disclose what happens if the file doesn't exist (does it create it?), whether it creates parent directories, whether the operation is atomic, or what errors may occur. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant behavioral gap.

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 single sentence is efficient and front-loaded with the core action. However, it's under-specified for the complexity of a file-writing operation; conciseness at the expense of critical behavioral detail (file existence, error handling, path semantics) veers toward under-specification rather than disciplined brevity.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter schema coverage, the description should do substantially more work. It leaves critical questions unanswered: behavior for nonexistent files, directory creation, error cases, and path format expectations. For a file write tool among many sibling file operations, this is incomplete.

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 compensate for parameter documentation. It mentions no details about the 'path' parameter (relative vs absolute, encoding expectations) or 'content' parameter (size limits, whether it accepts arbitrary text). The description adds only that the file is UTF-8 text, which partially informs content semantics but leaves path handling undocumented.

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 verb and resource: 'Replace the full content of a UTF-8 text file.' It distinguishes this from siblings like create_file (which creates new files) and append operations. It's specific enough to convey it overwrites entire content rather than appending or patching, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 implicitly signals usage context ('replace the full content'), which helps differentiate from create_file or replace_text (which does targeted edits). However, it provides no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of file existence requirements, and doesn't note that replace_text / search_text might be better for partial edits.

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