write_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the scope ('within active project or allowed directories') but does not disclose important traits such as overwrite behavior, handling of missing directories, security restrictions, or side effects. The parameter descriptions in the schema cover some of this, but the tool description itself lacks this context.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the primary verb, object, and scope without any redundancy. Every word earns its place; no filler or irrelevant detail.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is somewhat minimal. It conveys the core purpose and a key constraint but does not mention important behavioral details like error conditions, permission requirements, or the significance of the various flags. The schema covers parameter definitions, so the overall context is adequate but not rich.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., when to use createPath vs createIfMissing) or explain the deprecated filePath alias.

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's function: 'Writes or updates the content of a file' within a scoped location ('active project or allowed directories'). This specific verb-object pair distinguishes it from sibling tools like copy_file, move_file, or delete_file.

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 any scenario where file content must be written or updated, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_file_to_project or create_directory. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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