write_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('Overwrite') and the read-only refusal, which is useful context. However, it does not mention the backup behavior (present in the schema but not disclosed in text), the possibility of partial failure, or requirements like host connectivity. It partially covers behavioral transparency but not fully.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word earns its place: the first sentence defines the action and the second provides a key preventive constraint. No fluff or redundancy.

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 description is complete enough for a straightforward overwrite tool. The output schema exists to clarify return values, and the schema covers the parameters. The read-only refusal ensures agents do not misuse it on restricted hosts. It lacks a bit of behavioral context but is sufficient overall.

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%, so the schema already fully explains every parameter (host, path, backup, content). The description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema documents, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Overwrite') and resource ('a remote file'), which clearly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like read_file or list_directory. The intent is unambiguous and leaves no room for confusion about what the tool does.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions the read-only host refusal, that is a constraint rather than usage context. There is no mention of using read_file to inspect the file before overwriting, or any explicit selector for when to choose write_file over run_command.

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