Patch theme file (find & replace)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a critical side effect ('Auto-commits to git'), the exact-match constraint, and the requirement that old_str appear exactly once. It does not go into failure modes or hidden-content behavior, but the most important behavioral traits are present.

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?

Two dense sentences deliver the action, constraint, side effect, and sibling-tool guidance with no filler. The most important operational details are front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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?

For a 5-parameter edit tool with no output schema, the description plus schema covers the core invocation: what to patch, how to make the match unique, the auto-commit effect, and when to prefer it over write_file. The allow_hidden parameter is documented in the schema, and return-behavior details are not essential for calling this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 80%, so the schema handles most parameter meaning. The description adds practical value beyond the schema by explaining that enough surrounding lines should be included to make old_str unique, which helps the agent construct a valid old_str value. This is a meaningful addition rather than mere repetition.

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 specific action ('Edit an existing theme file'), the exact mechanism ('replacing an exact string'), and the resource. It also distinguishes itself from write_file by explicitly saying it is preferred for edits, so an agent can differentiate it from siblings without ambiguity.

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?

It gives clear, actionable guidance: use this for editing existing files by exact replacement, and it explicitly names write_file as the alternative for other cases ('Preferred over write_file for edits'). It also tells the agent how to make old_str unique by including surrounding lines, which is essential for correct invocation.

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