write_file_content

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool creates or overwrites files (a potentially destructive action) and restricts usage to text content. It does not mention permissions, atomicity, or error handling, but the core side-effects and limitation are clearly stated.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a constraint and a pointer to an alternative tool. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 straightforward file write operation with a simple schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, overwrite behavior, text-only constraint, and binary alternative. It lacks details on error conditions or directory creation, but these are not critical for a basic write tool and the sibling context plus output schema fill the remaining gaps.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implicitly identifies 'content' as text and 'remote_path' as the target file location, but provides no further details such as encoding, path format, or size limits. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds only minimal semantic enrichment.

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 ('写入' - write) and resource ('坚果云文件' - Nutstore file), and specifies the action creates or overwrites. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling upload_file for binary content, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says this tool is for text content and instructs users to use upload_file for binary files. This provides a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use directive, effectively distinguishing it from alternatives in the sibling list.

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