cursor_agent_edit_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions being a 'Prompt-based wrapper' which suggests AI-driven editing rather than direct manipulation, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether edits are destructive, authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'edit' actually does to the file. The mention of 'no CLI subcommand required' is helpful but insufficient for a tool with 12 parameters.

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 appropriately brief with two concise sentences that each add value: the first states the core function, the second provides implementation context. No wasted words, though it could be more front-loaded with clearer purpose.

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 (12 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'editing' means operationally, how parameters interact, what the tool returns, or error conditions. For a file manipulation tool with many configuration options, this leaves critical gaps for agent understanding.

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 description coverage is 0% for all 12 parameters, and the description provides no information about any parameters beyond implying that 'instruction' is involved in editing. Parameters like 'apply', 'dry_run', 'model', 'force', and 'extra_args' remain completely unexplained, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding of what these inputs control.

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 the tool 'Edit a file with an instruction' which provides a basic verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what 'edit' entails and doesn't distinguish from siblings like cursor_agent_analyze_files or cursor_agent_raw. The additional note about being a 'Prompt-based wrapper' adds some context but doesn't fully clarify the specific editing mechanism.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions 'no CLI subcommand required' which hints at convenience over raw execution, but doesn't specify scenarios where this wrapper is preferable to sibling tools like cursor_agent_run or cursor_agent_raw for file editing tasks.

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