multi_edit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions atomicity, which is a key trait, but it does not explain what happens on failure (rollback? partial application?), whether edits are case-sensitive, how missing search strings are handled, or what the tool returns. For a mutation operation with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It immediately identifies the vendor ('Official Roblox Studio'), the operation ('atomically applies'), and the target ('multiple script edits across one or more Luau scripts'). Efficient and clear.

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 that this is a complex batch mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks critical context such as error handling (what if a search string isn't found?), atomicity guarantees beyond the word itself (e.g., whether any partial edits occur), and any prerequisites. An agent needs more to call it safely and correctly.

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 100% description coverage for all properties (search, scriptPath, replacement), each with a basic description. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond mentioning 'multiple script edits' and 'across Luau scripts', which is already implied by the schema structure. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a clear verb ('applies'), a specific resource ('multiple script edits across one or more Luau scripts'), and the atomicity property that distinguishes it from sibling tools like script_patch_source or script_set_source. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 for batch edits by saying 'multiple script edits' and 'atomically', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like script_patch_source for single edits or script_set_source for full replacements. The guidance is implied, not stated.

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