file_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the overwrite behavior, clarifies that content is passed via JSON parameters and not a shell, and notes automatic parent-directory creation. It does not cover error handling or return values, but the core side effects are transparent.

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 purposeful sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds safety/behavioral context, then gives routing guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a two-parameter write tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, this description is complete. It covers what the tool does, its safety characteristics, parent-directory side effect, and when to choose it over file_edit.

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 schema already documents both path and content. The description adds marginal value by emphasizing JSON parameter handling and full-file content, but it does not meaningfully expand beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create or overwrite a file with the given content.' It also differentiates from the sibling file_edit by explicitly positioning this tool for new files and full rewrites, so an agent can distinguish it without inspecting the schema.

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 gives explicit usage direction: 'Use this for new files and full rewrites.' It also names the alternative, file_edit, for targeted edits, making the when-to-use and when-not-to-use decision direct and unambiguous.

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