Editar por linhas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it only states the basic operation. It doesn't mention important details such as the behavior on invalid line ranges, whether the file must exist, or how expectedSha256 prevents conflicts. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 two short sentences, efficiently front-loaded with the core action. It is concise and readable, though the second sentence's 'resources' reference is somewhat vague. Still, it is appropriately sized.

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 has multiple parameters, a dryRun flag, and an integrity check, yet the description provides no context about usage patterns, expected return behavior, or failure modes. Sibling tools are not referenced, and no annotations or output schema exist, making this description insufficient for an agent to use the tool safely and effectively.

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%, but the description only partially compensates by mentioning 'por intervalo de linhas,' which relates to startLine/endLine. It does not explain the edits array structure, newText semantics, or optional dryRun/expectedSha256 parameters, so it fails to add meaningful parameter understanding.

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 it applies changes by line range, which clearly indicates a targeted file-editing operation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like fs.write_text through the 'intervalo de linhas' (line range) focus, though it could be more explicit about editing a file's content.

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 phrase 'ideal para alterações mais assertivas em resources' implies this is preferred for precise, targeted changes, but it does not give explicit when-to-use or exclusions relative to siblings like fs.write_text or fs.read_text. The guidance is contextual but not actionable.

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