flipper_write_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals that the operation overwrites existing content (a destructive behavior), returns the device-side md5 checksum, and requires is_base64=true for binary content. This covers key behavioral aspects beyond the basic write action, though it does not address permissions or error scenarios.

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: two sentences that front-load the main purpose and then provide necessary details (overwrite behavior, return value, base64 flag). No filler or redundant information is present.

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 the lack of annotations, the description covers the essential usage context: what it does, side effects (overwrite), return value (md5), and a parameter-specific tip. It does not mention preconditions like device connection, but this is arguably common to sibling Flipper tools and could be inferable from the tool family.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must clarify parameters. It explicitly explains is_base64 ('Set is_base64=true for binary content'), but does not elaborate on the format of 'path' or the expected encoding of 'content'. Since the names are somewhat self-explanatory but not fully specified, the description adds moderate value.

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 action: 'Write content to a file on the Flipper (overwrites).' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like flipper_read_file and flipper_delete by naming the write operation and its overwriting behavior.

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 implies usage (write content to a file) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like flipper_upload_file. It mentions a special case (is_base64=true for binary) but lacks explicit context or exclusions, such as prerequisites (device connection) or size limits.

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