write_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: it overwrites entire content, creates files if missing, and requires confirm=True for overwrites unless the server setting is disabled. This goes beyond basic expectations and gives the agent accurate expectations about side effects and safety.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second addresses a key behavioral condition, and the Args section is clean and structured. No unnecessary text or repetition.

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 tool's complexity (3 params, no annotations, output schema present), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage conditions, parameter semantics, and behavioral nuances. The existence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values. The description is self-sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must carry the burden. It does so thoroughly: path is explained as relative to workspace root, content is 'New full text content,' and confirm must be True to overwrite existing files. Every parameter gains meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Overwrite a file's entire content (creating it if it doesn't exist).' This distinguishes it from siblings like append_file or update_file by emphasizing full replacement and creation behavior.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: for full overwrites or creating new files. It explains the confirm requirement for existing files, giving practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like append_file or update_file, so it stops short of full exclusions.

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