write_file

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

Discloses that it overwrites, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, file size limits, or consequences of using sudo_password. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and is insufficient.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with action and caution.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too brief. It does not explain the role of alias, path, or sudo_password, nor what happens after writing (e.g., success/failure signals).

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 coverage is 25% with only the content parameter described. The description adds nothing about alias, path, or sudo_password, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('write') and resource ('remote file'), and specifies it overwrites, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file and list_directory.

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?

Only includes a caution ('Use with caution'), but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. Sibling tools exist but no comparison.

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