write_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well by disclosing auto-normalization behaviors (CRLF/CR conversion, newline stripping, dedent) and noting the difference between content and content_base64. It does not mention overwrite semantics or error handling, but the disclosed behaviors are significant and valuable.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses only two sentences. Every clause adds relevant detail without redundancy, making it an efficient and well-structured summary.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, content alternatives, normalization, and the optional return_content behavior. It does not detail response formats or failure modes, but these are sufficiently implied for a file-write operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the normalization differences between content and content_base64, and clarifies that dedent applies only to content. This enriches the parameter meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Write content to a file directly (no line range),' which clearly defines the action and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool edit_file by noting the lack of line-range targeting, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 hints at usage context by saying 'directly (no line range),' implying this is for full writes rather than edits. It also advises when to use content_base64 to avoid JSON escaping issues, but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives. This is clear context without exclusionary guidance.

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