Write File

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's reinforcement that it overwrites 'without warning' adds confirming context. It also adds the 'Only works within allowed directories' scope constraint and encoding behavior, which go beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with the core action first. The encoding sentence is marginally useful but borders on filler, keeping it just short of ideal economy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a mutating write tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers creation, overwrite behavior, encoding, and directory scope adequately; only parameter-level detail is thin.

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 0% for both params, so the description carries the burden but only obliquely touches path semantics via 'allowed directories.' The 'content' parameter and path format are left entirely unexplained, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Create a new file or completely overwrite an existing file') with clear scope. It distinguishes create-vs-overwrite behavior, but never names the sibling it should be preferred over, such as edit_file for partial changes.

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 warning 'Use with caution as it will overwrite existing files without warning' implies this is for full writes over incremental edits, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative (edit_file) is given. Usage is only implied.

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