write_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention critical traits such as whether it overwrites existing files, creates parent directories, fails on non-existent paths, or requires special permissions. The only added detail is that the path is relative to the repository root.

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 very concise with no unnecessary words, making it easy to skim. However, the brevity sacrifices essential behavioral details, so while it is structurally efficient, it is under-specified for a file-writing operation.

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 lack of annotations and minimal description, the tool is incomplete for safe invocation. An agent cannot infer overwrite behavior, error conditions, or the meaning of workspace_id. While an output schema may exist (per context signals), it doesn't address the destructive nature of writing files or prerequisites.

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% and the description adds minimal parameter clarification. It explains path is relative to the repo root, but content and workspace_id are left undefined. The tool would benefit from stating that content is the full file contents to be written and workspace_id indicates which workspace/repository to target.

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 'Write content to a file in the repository' with the path relative to the repo root, providing a specific action (write) and resource (file). It distinguishes itself from read_file (read vs write) and other file manipulation tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with apply_patch or others.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use write_file versus alternatives like apply_patch, run_command, or repo_commit. It doesn't clarify whether this tool is appropriate for creating new files, overwriting existing ones, or for large content versus incremental patches.

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