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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). It discloses atomicity ('Nothing is applied if any block fails to match'), the exactly-once whitespace-sensitive match rule, delete semantics via empty replace, and that every check is re-run. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent must know before invoking.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action, then target resolution, then the critical match/atomicity rules. No filler; every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers action, target file resolution, atomicity, match semantics, and check re-running. It omits failure/response details, but annotations and the atomicity statement cover the essentials.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: each search must match exactly once, matching is whitespace-sensitive, and an empty replace deletes. This meaningfully enriches the 'edits' array semantics beyond the schema's terse 'Ordered patches'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Apply SEARCH/REPLACE patches to your latest script and re-run every check.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_circuit by describing the relationship ('as submit_circuit does'), so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Clarifies which file is targeted ('your last submission when it was sent back (attempt_N_circuit.py), otherwise the design's circuit.py') and frames the tool as the alternative to submit_circuit for incremental editing. No explicit when-not condition is stated, but the context is clear.

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