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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses atomic all-or-nothing validation ('if any find fails to match, the file is left untouched'), the exact-match whitespace requirement, the confirm=true gate, and the auto_commit batching guidance. The destructiveHint=false annotation is consistent with the described non-corrupting, validated behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with a capitalized action label, then segmented into clear paragraphs for behavior, prerequisites, and confirmation. Despite its length, every sentence carries operational information (cost/safety rationale, validation semantics, confirm gate); no filler.

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 write tool with an output schema present, the description covers what it need not (return format) and what it must: atomicity, exact-match requirements, confirmation, and the batching interaction with dreamagent_commit_push. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully augments the critical 'edits' parameter by stressing that 'find' text must be copied EXACTLY including whitespace and indentation, and explains the confirm/auto_commit workflow implications. This adds real operational meaning beyond the schema text.

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 (exact search/replace edits), resource (existing file in a DreamAgent project) and scope (small, targeted changes). It explicitly distinguishes itself from dreamagent_write_file, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit preference rule (PREFERRED over dreamagent_write_file for editing), names the exclusion (use write_file only to CREATE or fully rewrite), and prescribes a prerequisite (read the file first) plus a confirmation workflow. Nothing is left to inference.

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