write_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does well by disclosing atomic temp-file-plus-rename behavior, default parent-directory creation, and configurable encoding. It does not mention overwrite behavior on an existing file or failure modes, so it is informative but not exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and every sentence adding relevant behavior. No repetition of schema boilerplate and no wasted words.

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 nested request schema, complete parameter descriptions, and presence of an output schema, the description provides enough for a capable agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could be more complete with an explicit statement about replacing existing files and when to use patch_file instead, which keeps it from a 5.

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 documents path, content, atomic, encoding, and create_dirs. The description adds the rationale 'to prevent partial writes' and confirms defaults, but most parameter meaning is already carried by the schema; this is a solid baseline rather than a standout contribution.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Write content to a file atomically,' which makes the tool's core purpose immediately identifiable. It adds useful behavioral details (atomic writes, parent dir creation) but does not explicitly differentiate from patch_file, 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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer write_file over the sibling patch_file, or what conditions make full-file writes appropriate. The description states behavior rather than selection criteria or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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