validate_edit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses two specific checks (syntax errors and breaking changes) and emphasizes the 'before applying' nature, implying read-only validation. The presence of an output schema (not shown but known from context) further reduces the need to detail return values.

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 concise with four sentences: one for purpose, two listing checks, and one usage instruction. It is front-loaded with the primary action. Some structure could be improved (e.g., grouping checks), but it is efficient and free of fluff.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no enums, output schema exists), the description covers the main purpose and checks. However, it omits details like whether the tool returns errors or a simple pass/fail, and does not clarify the scope of 'breaking changes' (e.g., across entire codebase). The output schema likely fills some gaps, but the description could be more informative.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the two parameters. However, it provides no additional meaning beyond the schema: file_path and new_content are not described in terms of format, constraints, or examples. This leaves the agent to infer meaning from names alone.

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 tool validates a proposed code edit before applying it, listing specific checks (syntax errors and breaking changes). It distinguishes from sibling tools, which focus on codebase indexing, searching, structure, and references, none of which perform validation.

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 explicitly instructs 'Use this tool to check your code before writing it to a file,' making when to use clear. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools implies the tool is for validation only.

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