write_file_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it can create or overwrite files, overwrites without warning (destructive behavior), and handles text content with proper encoding. It lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format, but covers essential safety and scope.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and caution, using three concise sentences with zero waste. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second warns of risks, and the third clarifies content handling.

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 (destructive file operations) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, risks, and content type, but could benefit from mentioning response behavior or error cases. It adequately compensates for the missing structured data.

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 parameters ('path' and 'content') adequately. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying 'content' is text and 'path' is relative, but this is largely redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('create' or 'overwrite') and resource ('file in the workspace filesystem'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'edit_file_content' (partial edits) and 'create_directory' (directories only). It specifies that it handles both new files and complete overwrites of existing ones.

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 this tool ('create a new file or completely overwrite an existing file') and includes a caution about overwriting without warning. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'edit_file_content' for partial edits) or specify when not to use it beyond the caution.

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