fs__write_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: complete overwrite without warning, text encoding handling, and restriction to allowed directories. This is adequate for a write operation.

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 three concise sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second adds a critical caution, and the third specifies constraints. No unnecessary words.

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 simple write tool, the description covers purpose, caution, encoding, and scope. It lacks details like whether parent directories are created (unlikely given sibling fs__create_directory), but is largely complete.

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?

The description mentions 'text content with proper encoding' for the content parameter, adding some semantics beyond the schema. However, the path parameter is not elaborated, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates.

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 tool creates a new file or overwrites an existing one. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like fs__edit_file (partial modification) and fs__read_file, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 advises caution due to overwriting without warning, implying use cases for file creation/replacement. However, it does not specify when not to use it (e.g., for appending) or mention alternative tools like fs__edit_file.

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