write

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the overwrite semantics are partly covered structurally. The description still adds value beyond them: it clarifies that replacement is total, that paths resolve on the selected remote host, and that parent directories are created automatically. It does not disclose permissions/auth needs or failure behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero waste. The core action is front-loaded and the remote/target constraint follows immediately after.

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 destructive remote write with destructiveness and open-world behavior already declared in annotations, the description covers location, path resolution, and parent-directory creation. It stops short of describing what a successful call returns or how failures/partial writes surface, though no output schema exists to cover that.

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% and all three parameters are documented in the schema itself (target, content, file_path with relative-path resolution). The description reinforces the target-selection constraint but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource ('Create or fully replace a UTF-8 text file'), and the word 'fully replace' implicitly carves out its scope against the sibling `edit` (partial modification) and `read`. An agent can tell what this does and how it differs from the other file tools without opening 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 real context ('REMOTE: paths live on selected target') and the requirement to pick the intended host, which is genuine usage guidance for a remote tool. However, it never explicitly says when to choose `write` over `edit` or `read`, nor does it state exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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