replace_rung

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

The description adds a behavioral note about the revision guard preventing stale edits, which is useful context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. However, it does not elaborate on other behaviors such as what happens to the existing rung or any side effects, so it only partially meets the bar.

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—two sentences—and front-loads the primary action and key constraint (revision guard). Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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's complexity (7 parameters, destructive, output schema, multiple sibling rung tools), the description is minimal. It omits parameter semantics, output details, and any process context, making it inadequate to fully guide an agent in correct use.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate by explaining any of the 7 parameters. It only hints at 'instructions' via 'mnemonic lines', but does not clarify other fields like project_id, rung_index, or expected_revision. This is a significant gap given the large parameter count.

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 one rung) and the format (CX-Programmer mnemonic lines), which is specific and tied to the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'replace_rung_structured', so it falls short of a 5.

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 (replace a rung) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'replace_rung_structured' or other rung-editing tools. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned.

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