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

The description discloses atomicity ('Applied as ONE undoable, all-or-nothing batch') and dry_run behavior, which are not present in the annotations. It also emphasizes the exact-match requirement for `old`. These details add valuable behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations.

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 dense but purposeful: every sentence adds operational detail, organized by file type and then by global behavior. It front-loads the core purpose before diving into specifics, with 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?

The description covers the tool's scope for each supported file type, batch behavior, and a critical prerequisite (fresh ws_read). Given no output schema, it does not detail return values, but it addresses the main decisions an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. Minor gaps remain around `confirm` and `replace_all`.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that `old`/`new` are exact replacement strings and that `dry_run=true` returns operations without applying. However, it does not explain `confirm` or `replace_all`, leaving those parameters ambiguous.

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 'Edit the project by editing its files — exact old→new replacement, like editing code,' clearly stating a specific verb and resource. It then enumerates file types and operations, which distinguishes it from read-only siblings like ws_read and ws_grep.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: 'old must be copied exactly from a fresh ws_read,' linking to the correct read tool. It also explains dry_run for previewing. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like run_timeline_batch, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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