edit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the exact replacement behavior, effects of parameters like replace_all, dry_run, auto_format, show_diff, and the scoping modes. While it doesn't explicitly state that editing is destructive, the purpose 'edit' implies mutation, and the description covers behavioral traits adequately.

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 well-structured with a summary line, then usage guidelines, then parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Though somewhat lengthy, each sentence provides useful information with minimal 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 complexity (9 parameters, 1 required, no schema descriptions, but output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers all modes, parameter semantics, sibling differentiation, and behavioral aspects, enabling an AI agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose and use of all 9 parameters: path, old_string, new_string, replace_all, dry_run, auto_format, show_diff, start_line, end_line. It clarifies optional conditions and defaults, adding significant value beyond the schema.

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 'Edit one file via exact replacement' and explicitly distinguishes from siblings: 'For multiple edits to the same file, use batch_edit' and 'For full rewrites, use write'. It provides specific verb and resource, and differentiates modes within the tool.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (batch_edit, write). It also advises on best practices like keeping old_string short and adding line bounds when ambiguous, and explains the three modes of operation with conditions.

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