Edit hunk (deprecated alias)

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Compatibility alias,' which implies it delegates to article_review_edit_patch, but does not explain side effects, permissions, or whether it mutates data meaningful. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about the tool's actual behavior or consequences.

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 sentence, which is appropriately concise for a deprecated alias. It front-loads the key fact ('Compatibility alias') and names the target tool. However, it is under-specified for a tool with many parameters, though the alias nature makes brevity acceptable.

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 a complex schema (11 params, 5 required) and no output schema or annotations. The description only mentions it is an alias, providing minimal context. It does not explain what the tool does, what parameters are needed, or what the return format is. The agent would need to inspect article_review_edit_patch to understand this tool, but that information is not in the description.

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 11 parameters (5 required), but the description provides zero parameter information. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameter meanings or relationships. The agent is left entirely to infer from schema field names, which are not self-explanatory (e.g., 'hunkId', 'editedText', 'idempotencyKey').

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 'Compatibility alias for article_review_edit_patch,' which indicates it is a deprecated alias for another tool. This gives a specific resource (the patch tool) but does not directly state what the tool does (e.g., 'Edits a hunk'). It is not a tautology because it names a sibling tool, but the purpose is implied rather than explicit.

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?

By calling itself 'deprecated alias,' the description explicitly tells the agent that this tool should not be used in favor of article_review_edit_patch. This is a clear guideline to prefer the alternative, which is more than most descriptions provide. It lacks detail on specific scenarios but effectively signals when not to use this tool.

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