write_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states creation behavior but does not mention overwrite semantics, parent directory handling, or failure modes. Basic transparency is present, but important edge-case behaviors are unaddressed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with a specific verb and object. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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?

As a simple write tool with a complete parameter schema and an output schema, the description covers the core function well. Minor gaps like overwrite behavior are inferable, making it nearly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 covers both parameters (path and content) with clear descriptions at 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter insight, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'Write content' clearly states the action, and 'to a file' names the resource. Including 'creating it if it doesn't exist' adds scope and distinguishes it from edit_file, which modifies existing files.

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 phrase 'creating it if it doesn't exist' implies use for new files or full overwrites, giving clear context. It does not explicitly exclude edit_file for targeted edits, but the context makes the boundary evident.

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