write-file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the waiting behavior, which is a useful behavioral trait beyond the schema. However, it doesn't mention whether the file is overwritten if it exists, permissions, or any side effects. The description adds some value but could disclose more about the operation's effects.

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?

Two sentences, clear and to the point. The key behavior (waiting) is front-loaded after the primary action. No fluff, every word adds meaning.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (write a file) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers timing behavior, which is the critical gap. It doesn't mention overwrite semantics or error conditions, but for a basic write operation, this is fairly complete. The output schema likely covers return values, so no need to explain those.

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 coverage is 60%, meaning two parameters (content and encoding) lack descriptions in the schema. The description does not add semantics for these, but the schema already covers name, path, and target well. Since content and encoding are straightforward, the description doesn't need to add much. The description does add the nuance that path should be 'absolute', which is helpful beyond the schema's 'Absolute path' description.

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 states the verb 'Write a file' and the resource 'into a machine', clearly identifying the primary action. It distinguishes from siblings like read-file and run-command. However, it doesn't explicitly note that this is for a remote machine vs local, but the context of 'machine' and sibling names make it clear enough.

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 mentions 'Waits until the workload container runs so the file is not lost', providing a timing context that implies when this is safe to use. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like run-command for writing files. The guidance is implied but not exhaustive.

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