Write File

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the file-creation behavior, but it leaves the critical overwrite semantics unstated—would writing to an existing file replace it or append? It also omits permission errors and directory creation 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 just two sentences, 18 words, and the main behavior is front-loaded. The opening 'This function will' is slightly padded, but overall the description is economical and easy to scan.

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?

For a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify whether an existing file is overwritten. It also does not specify parent-directory handling, path format, or failure modes, leaving an agent with meaningful uncertainty about side effects.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only restates the parameter names ('file', 'content') in the phrase 'write the given content to a file' without adding detail on path formats, constraints, or edge cases. This does not meaningfully enrich the schema.

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 a specific verb ('write') and resource ('file') and adds that a missing file will be created, so the core purpose is unmistakable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like python_file or bash, which can also write files, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use write_file versus alternatives such as bash, python_file, or read_file. The intended use is vaguely implied by the description, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to siblings are provided.

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