write_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It reveals that the file will be UTF-8 text and sandboxed to the workspace, but it does not state whether an existing file is overwritten, whether parent directories are created, or what happens on failure.

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 focused sentence that clearly states the operation, the file type, and the workspace constraint, with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has only two simple parameters and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. The sandbox and encoding information give an agent enough context to make a first correct call, though overwrite and directory behavior are still unspecified.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate for missing parameter details. It gives a small hint that content should be UTF-8 text, but it says nothing about path semantics, path format, content size limits, or how the two parameters relate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Write') and a clear resource ('a UTF-8 text file') and adds an important scope constraint ('sandboxed to the workflow workspace'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like read_file and list_dir, which represent read operations.

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 makes the intended use clear: writing text files within the workflow workspace. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'sandboxed to the workflow workspace' phrase provides helpful context for selecting the tool.

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