vault_edit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the schema: the 'must appear exactly once' safety check and the markdown-link output format for paths. This gives an agent useful knowledge about safety and how to handle output, though it does not disclose error behavior or permission requirements.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the safety constraint, and finally the output-format note. Every sentence provides necessary information with no redundancy or filler. It is an model of conciseness.

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 is moderately simple, but the description omits the full return value or output structure (only path formatting is mentioned). With no output schema and many sibling tools, more detail about what to expect after editing would improve completeness. Still, the core behavior and key constraints are covered.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds extra value by clarifying how the `path` parameter should be used (pass only bracket text) and reinforces the `old_string` uniqueness requirement. This is above the baseline for high coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('Edit') and resource ('a file'), with a specific method ('replacing an exact string match'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vault_write, vault_append, and vault_update_frontmatter, which imply other edit mechanisms. The exact-once constraint further clarifies the tool's specific behavior.

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 implies usage when an exact string replacement is needed, and the uniqueness constraint gives a clear precondition. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like vault_write or vault_append, nor does it state when *not* to use this tool. Usage guidance is left to inference rather than direct instruction.

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