Write File

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the FS_READONLY prerequisite, but omits critical behavior such as whether the file is created, overwritten, or appended by default, and whether parent directories are created. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded and the prerequisite is stated separately. This is an appropriately concise description for its limited scope.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description remains incomplete for correct invocation. It does not explain path conventions, default overwrite behavior, append semantics, or encoding accepted values. For a write operation with four parameters and no annotations, more context is needed.

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, but it only glosses the content parameter as 'text content.' It adds no meaningful guidance for path, append, or encoding, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.

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 verb and resource: 'Write text content to a file.' It clearly differentiates write_file from sibling tools like read_file, move, copy, and delete by naming the exact action and target.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when writing text content to a file. The prerequisite 'Requires FS_READONLY=false' gives some operational context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it.

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