kimi_write_file

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

The description discloses the destructive overwrite behavior, which is important, but with no annotations, it leaves significant gaps: no mention of directory creation, permissions, path validation, or return values. The overwrite disclosure is helpful but the description does not fully carry the behavioral transparency burden.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word is meaningful and it is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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 simple write tool, the description and schema are mostly adequate, but the undocumented 'workFolder' parameter and lack of any behavioral detail beyond overwrite leave gaps. The tool is low-complexity, so this is not severely incomplete, but it is not fully complete.

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 schema already describes 'path' and 'content' (67% coverage), but the description adds no semantic value beyond paraphrasing 'content'. The optional 'workFolder' parameter remains undocumented both in schema and description, and the description does not help clarify it.

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 function with a specific verb ('Create or overwrite') and resource ('a file with given content'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like kimi_edit_file by explicitly mentioning overwrite as a core 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like kimi_edit_file, kimi_read_file, and kimi_shell are not referenced, and no usage context or exclusions are provided.

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