write_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It discloses the write operation but omits critical details like whether the file is overwritten or appended, whether paths are created automatically, permissions, or error handling. For a file-writing tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 reasonably concise but includes a redundant 'Args:' section since the schema already defines parameters. The structure is clear, but could be more streamlined by removing the label and integrating the parameter explanations.

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 and presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It mentions a success message return but does not detail the output format or potential error states. The sibling tools list is large, yet no comparisons are provided, leaving the agent to infer boundaries.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters: path, content, and backend. It clarifies that backend is optional with a default, which is not evident from the schema alone. However, it lacks details on path format or content encoding.

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 action ('Write content') and the resource ('to a file'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_file' and 'copy_file'. The mention of 'on the specified backend' adds context that differentiates it from generic file operations.

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 the default backend behavior but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'copy_file' or 'create_dir'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and basic purpose, lacking when-not-to-use or prerequisite information.

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