Create a new file or replace existing contents at a specified path. Optionally write as root for system files.
Create a new file or replace file contents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path to the file to create | |
| content | No | Text content to write to the file | |
| privileged | No | Set to true to write as root |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the key overwrite behavior ('replace file contents'), but it omits other important traits such as privileged/root writing, permission requirements, error behavior, or whether parent directories are created.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 three-parameter tool, the description covers the core operation adequately, and the schema fills in parameter details. However, the lack of usage differentiation from files/update and the absence of any output/response information leave meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the word 'contents' loosely aligning with the content parameter, which is the expected baseline.
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 action ('Create') and the resource ('file'), and adds 'or replace file contents' to cover overwriting. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool files/update, which likely also handles content replacement.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use files/create versus files/update, and no exclusions or alternative conditions are provided. The phrase 'or replace file contents' implies an overwrite use case, but this creates ambiguity with files/update rather than resolving it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.