openclaw_agents_files_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is destructive and silently overwrites content. However, it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or return value, which are important for understanding behavior.

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 two sentences with the purpose front-loaded. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating parameter guidance).

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 large sibling set and no output schema, the description lacks information about what the tool returns (e.g., success indicator, file metadata). It adequately covers input parameters but misses output context, leaving the agent uncertain about the result.

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 description coverage is 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds clarity by grouping mutually exclusive parameters (path/name, content/body) and noting version-dependence, but this is a minor addition to already-good schema descriptions.

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 or overwrites agent files, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like openclaw_agents_files_list and openclaw_agents_files_get which are read-only, and from agent management tools.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It mentions that it wraps `agents.files.set` but does not contrast with sibling tools. Usage context is implied but not explicitly guided.

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