create_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 reveals the DUPLICATE_FILE error, the overwrite flag's effect, and the path/content semantics. While it doesn't mention whether parent directories are created or describe the success return value, it covers the core behavior and error handling transparently.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, an error/condition note, and a concise args list. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description covers purpose, error behavior, overwrite condition, and parameter semantics. The complexity is low, and the description is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter in detail: path relative to workspace root with an example, content as full text, and overwrite semantics. This goes beyond the bare schema and provides actionable meaning.

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 and object ('Create a new file') and clarifies the workspace scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like write_file and append_file by explicitly stating it creates a new file and fails if the file exists, which aligns with its create semantics.

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 clearly states when to use the tool (to create a new file) and the error condition if the file already exists, with a workaround (overwrite=True). It does not explicitly name alternative tools like update_file, but the 'new file' wording and failure behavior provide clear usage context.

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