efs_edit

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: creates an automatic backup, dryRun previews without writing, and oldText must be unique. This goes beyond typical descriptions, though it omits details like error handling or backup location.

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 extremely concise—three short sentences packed with useful specifics. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and each subsequent sentence adds new value without repetition or 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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers most essential operational details: purpose, uniqueness, count behavior, dryRun, and backup. It does not mention the range parameter (which is odd for a file editor) or explain return values, but for most use cases it is adequately complete.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful semantics: it specifies the default value for count (1) and explains the dryRun behavior, plus the uniqueness constraint on oldText. Some parameter details are redundant (e.g., dryRun), but the added info elevates it above the baseline.

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 'Surgical find/replace in a file', which is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes this tool from siblings like efs_write (whole-file write) and efs_search (search only). It also adds key constraints (oldText unique) that further clarify its purpose.

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 practical usage instructions (count default and -1, dryRun preview) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly compared with sibling tools.

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