shared_write

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

Annotations already convey idempotency and non-destructiveness, lowering the bar. The description adds the useful detail that the file is UTF-8 encoded, but it does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, whether directories are created, or what edge cases exist. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices needed parameter and behavior detail for brevity.

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 tool is relatively simple and has an output schema plus annotations, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the absence of any explanation for the full_output parameter and the lack of path-related conventions leave an incomplete picture for fully correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the path and content parameters. It does not mention path, content, or the full_output flag at all; the only semantic hint is that the file is UTF-8 encoded. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently interpret all three parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Write'), the resource ('one UTF-8 file'), and the location ('local shared workspace'). It distinguishes itself from sibling read tools like shared_read and from host_* tools by emphasizing 'local', though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 for writing files in the local shared workspace, which gives useful context among siblings. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, and it does not mention exclusions or conditions such as path conventions or conflicts with host transfer tools.

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