write_file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context – parent folders are auto-created and the operation is a full overwrite rather than a merge – though it doesn't say what happens on failure or how the SHA precondition rejection surfaces.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the destructive overwrite semantics are front-loaded and the alternative-tool guidance follows immediately.

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 write tool with destructive annotations, a fully-covered schema, and no output schema, the description covers what it must: overwrite semantics, side effects, and routing to safer alternatives. Only failure behavior is unstated, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters including check and expectedSha256 are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the overwrite scope, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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+resource ('Create or fully overwrite a file') and clarifies scope with 'fully overwrite' plus the parent-folder side effect. It also names sibling alternatives, so an agent can distinguish it from apply_patch/edit_file without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Prefer apply_patch/edit_file for changes to existing files,' giving both the preferred alternative and the condition that selects it. This is an explicit when-not-to-use statement.

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