file_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses the destructive overwrite behavior ('会覆盖已有文件'), which is the most important safety concern. It does not mention permissions, file creation, or error cases, but the overwrite warning adds significant value.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key side-effect warning in parentheses. There is no wasted wording, and the overwrite caution is prominently placed.

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 description covers the essential purpose and the critical overwrite side-effect, which an agent needs to know before invoking the tool. It lacks details about return values or error conditions, but for a straightforward file-write operation, it is reasonably complete given the moderate complexity.

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 input schema covers all three parameters (server, path, content) with descriptions at 100% coverage, so the schema already explains what each parameter means. The description repeats the concept of content and remote server but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema's baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('write') and resource ('remote server file'), and explicitly notes the overwriting behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read concerns like file_read, file_list, and file_search, so an agent can identify it as the write operation.

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 use when you need to write content to a remote file, but provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives. It does not compare with server_exec, which could also modify files, leaving the when-not-to-use guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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