edit_html_range

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

With no annotations provided, the description should carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it replaces lines, which is inherent to the tool, and gives a usage hint. It does not disclose side effects, error handling, or any requirements (e.g., file existence, valid line ranges), leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single concise sentence with a parenthetical hint. Every word earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded with the additional efficiency insight placed as a secondary note. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple range-replacement tool, the description covers the essential purpose and the key usage advantage (token efficiency). The schema provides line-indexing details, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. However, it lacks any note about behavior on invalid ranges or whether the file must pre-exist, which would be useful given the absence of annotations.

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?

While the schema already describes start_line, end_line, and new_content, the description adds the crucial clarification 'send only the changed lines', which explains what new_content should contain. This goes beyond the schema, which only says 'Replacement content for the specified lines'. Coverage is 75%, and the description compensates meaningfully for the ambiguous new_content parameter.

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 action ('Replace a range of lines') and the resource ('in an HTML file'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. The parenthetical 'most token-efficient edit' further differentiates it from sibling editing tools by highlighting its unique value proposition.

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 when to use the tool ('most token-efficient edit — send only the changed lines'), providing a clear context for selection. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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