storage_write_fileWrite or overwrite text content in Oceanum cloud storage by specifying a destination path and content, creating the file if it does not exist.
Write text content to a file in Oceanum storage.
Creates the file if it doesn't exist, overwrites if it does.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Destination path in Oceanum storage. | |
| content | Yes | Text content to write. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the most consequential behavior — silent overwrite of existing files — which is genuinely useful for data-loss avoidance. However it says nothing about required permissions, content encoding/type handling, size limits, or whether the write is atomic, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.
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 short sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the create-or-overwrite caveat immediately follows, so nothing has to be hunted for.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully covers both parameters. For a simple two-parameter write, the description covers the essential behavioral surprise (overwrite). Only minor gaps remain — no auth/permission note, which matters for a mutation tool with no 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, path-format, or content-format detail beyond what 'path' and 'content' already convey in the 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Write text content to a file in Oceanum storage.' The verb contrasts naturally with siblings like storage_read_file and storage_delete_file, though it never names a sibling explicitly. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is implied by the operation itself (write/overwrite a file), but there is no statement of when to prefer this over storage_delete_file or storage_file_exists, nor any prerequisite guidance. The 'creates if absent, overwrites if present' line does hint at idempotent upsert semantics, which is the closest thing to usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.