Edtb Interface Edit

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does so by listing the mutating operations and explicitly defining dryRun as returning a unified diff without writing to disk, which implies normal execution persists changes. It does not discuss reversibility or permissions, but the core side-effect behavior is clear.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by an operation-list spec and a short dryRun definition. Every sentence contributes functional information and there is no repetition of schema fields.

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 core invoke data (ops shapes, dryRun semantics) is covered and an output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. However, the full allowed values for group are truncated ('NavigationPanelOrdinary|...'), and no behavior is described for invalid groups, missing subsystemFQN, or what exact file changes occur when dryRun is false; this leaves moderate ambiguity for place/order operations.

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?

The input schema has no parameter descriptions, but the description adds concrete JSON templates for hide/show/place/order, explains the meaning of command FQN, and defines dryRun's effect. It is less explicit about subsystemFQN and the full group value set, but it compensates for most of the schema's 0% 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 immediately names the exact resource ('CommandInterface.xml подсистемы') and the specific mutation verbs ('hide/show/place/order команд'), making the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from read/info siblings such as edtb_interface_info.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The purpose implies 'use for editing interface commands', but nothing in the description routes an agent away from related tools like edtb_plan_mutations, edtb_apply_mutations, or edtb_interface_info.

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