Create Text File

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable context by specifying that it can 'overwrite an existing file' and returns 'success or failure' messages. This clarifies the destructive nature beyond the annotation and provides outcome expectations, though it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or file encoding details.

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 consists of two tightly focused sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and outcome. Every word serves a purpose with zero redundancy, and the information is front-loaded with the primary action stated 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?

Given the destructive nature indicated by annotations, the presence of an output schema, and 100% parameter coverage, the description provides adequate context. It covers the tool's primary behavior and outcome expectations, though it could benefit from mentioning encoding requirements or error scenarios for a more complete picture.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3. No additional semantic context is provided for 'relative_path' or 'content' parameters.

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 specific action ('Write a new file or overwrite an existing file') and resource ('file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'read_file' or 'replace_content'. It precisely communicates both creation and overwrite capabilities in a single concise statement.

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 implies usage for file creation/overwriting but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'replace_content' or 'write_memory'. It mentions the tool's behavior but doesn't specify scenarios where it's preferred over other file manipulation tools in the sibling list.

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