Write file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description usefully narrows that destructiveness: the only mutation is an overwrite of the target file, gated behind overwrite=true, and 'Does not delete anything else.' That scope-limiting detail is real added value beyond the annotation flags. It stops short of describing failure modes or permission requirements.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the two guard conditions and the non-effect. Every sentence carries information and none is redundant.

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 6-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral edge cases (overwrite refusal, auto-parent creation, no other deletions). It omits auth requirements and error/return behavior, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 path, content, parents, encoding, overwrite, and contentType are all already documented in the schema. The description restates the parents and overwrite semantics without adding new syntax, format, or constraint detail, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create or upload a file') plus the transport ('over WebDAV PUT'), which immediately separates it from siblings like mkdir, move, read_file, and delete. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 gives conditional guidance on parameter behavior (overwrite must be true to replace, parents true to create folders), but never says when to choose this tool over alternatives or states prerequisites/authentication needs. Usage is implied rather than explicitly framed as when-to-use.

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