Write or overwrite text content to a target file path, creating or updating files.
Write or overwrite text content to a target file path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Target file path. | |
| content | Yes | Text content to write. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the key destructive side effect of overwriting existing content and restricts the operation to text content. However, it omits other important behavioral details such as whether missing parent directories are created, permission requirements, or failure 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?
A single, focused sentence with no filler words. The core action and target are front-loaded, and every word contributes 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?
The tool is simple with two required parameters and no output schema, and the description plus schema is sufficient for a basic invocation. However, it lacks guidance on choosing this tool over sibling write variants and does not mention behavioral constraints, making it only minimally viable for a mutation tool with no annotations.
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 100%, as both 'path' and 'content' have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Write or overwrite text content to a target file path.' It clearly conveys the operation and target, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like file_replace or file_op, so it stops short of complete sibling discrimination.
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 provides no guidance on when to use file_write versus alternatives such as file_replace, file_op, or file_chmod. It neither states scenarios, prerequisites, nor exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.