Write File

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: 'overwrite existing files without warning' (matches destructiveHint=true), 'handles text content with proper encoding', and 'only works within allowed directories'. It does not contradict annotations (idempotentHint and destructiveHint are consistent). However, it omits details like return value or error handling.

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 that are front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: purpose, warning, encoding, scope. There is no wasted text.

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 low complexity (2 simple params) and existence of an output schema, the description covers the main behavior but misses parameter semantics and fails to explain what the content parameter expects (e.g., text encoding, size limits). It is adequate but not thorough.

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%—no parameter descriptions in the input schema. The description does not mention the parameters at all, providing no additional meaning beyond the parameter names 'path' and 'content'. This is a significant 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Create a new file or completely overwrite an existing file' and specifies the resource (files). It also notes the scope ('only works within allowed directories'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on browser content, not filesystem 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 description advises caution and warns about overwriting without warning, implying careful use. It distinguishes from edit_file (not listed as sibling but implied) by saying 'completely overwrite', but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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