PaperPilot

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

write_project_file

Create or overwrite a plain file at the project root to store user-visible deliverables like venue.md or approach.md, ensuring the scholar can read the final output directly.

Instructions

Create or fully overwrite a plain, user-visible file at the project root.

Unlike write_resource (hidden internal handoff state under
.pipeline_state/), this is for deliverables the scholar is meant to read
directly, e.g. venue.md or approach.md.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	Yes
`filename`	Yes
`project_dir`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the overwrite behavior and the file type/location, which is sufficient for typical file-write operations. No additional side effects are mentioned, but none are expected.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, directly states the purpose, and includes the key contrast with write_resource—no redundant or irrelevant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple file-write operation, the description provides sufficient context: the action, the file nature, and the location. The presence of an output schema (though not shown) means return details are not required. Minor gaps like error handling or directory creation are not critical for this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage) and the description does not explain the contents or roles of filename, content, or project_dir. Since schema coverage is low, the description was expected to compensate but does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Create or fully overwrite') and the resource ('a plain, user-visible file at the project root'), and explicitly contrasts it with write_resource for hidden internal state, 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly distinguishes this tool from write_resource, but does not differentiate it from the sibling write_file, which could also write files. Thus, guidance on when to use this tool versus write_file is missing.

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