fabric_onelake_write_file

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals the multi-step process (create, append, flush) and hints at a file-size limitation, but omits critical details: whether it overwrites or appends, if it's atomic, required permissions, or error behaviors.

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 very short and front-loaded, but may be too terse. It conveys core purpose quickly but sacrifices important detail. Every word earns its place, but additional sentences would improve completeness without harming conciseness.

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 no output schema and empty annotations, the description should compensate. It fails to mention return values (e.g., success message or object), whether the operation is synchronous or async, and how to handle errors or large files. Incomplete for a write operation.

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 documentation covers all three parameters fully (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides; no elaboration on path format, content constraints, or workspace default behavior.

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 ('Write'), object ('text file'), and target ('OneLake'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like fabric_onelake_read_file. The parenthetical '(create → append → flush)' adds specific process detail, making the purpose explicit and unique.

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 mentions 'small' files, implying a size constraint, but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives (e.g., for larger files or streaming). No guidance is given for choosing this over sibling tools like fabric_onelake_create_directory or fabric_load_lakehouse_table.

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