write_file

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

The description explicitly notes that the tool creates or overwrites a file, indicating a mutating side effect. However, it does not detail potential consequences (e.g., no backup, no confirmation) or file permissions, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's function without padding or redundancy.

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?

The description is sufficient for the tool's simple nature, covering the core action and parameters. It omits details about return values or error cases, but these are not critical given the tool's direct write operation.

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 parameter names 'path' and 'content' are self-explanatory, and the description clarifies that content is text and path is local. However, there is no explicit description of how content is handled (e.g., encoding, whether newline is added) or path formatting requirements, leaving some ambiguity.

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 writes a text file, creating or overwriting, at a local path. It distinguishes from sibling tools like write_project_file or write_resource by mentioning 'any local path'.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as write_project_file or append_project_file. No explicit conditions or preferences are mentioned.

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