replace_string_ldstr

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral transparency burden. It explicitly states that in v2.8.0 it returns 'status: not_implemented', which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other traits like side effects, permissions, or success/failure conditions, which would be needed for a fully transparent description.

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 very concise at two sentences. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides an important version note. However, the note about 'not_implemented' could be more prominent, and there is no structural separation like bullet points. Still, it is not verbose.

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 has 6 parameters (4 required) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'ldstr' is, how to use the parameters together, or what the return value means beyond 'not_implemented'. The version note is useful but insufficient for effective use.

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 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds no information about the parameters, their formats, or relationships. For example, 'path', 'method_fqn', 'old', 'new', 'dst', 'confirm_legal' are all unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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's purpose: 'Replace a specific ldstr operand within a method body'. The verb 'replace' and the specific resource 'ldstr operand' make the function unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'replace_method_body', which targets the entire method.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when-not to use, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'patch_assembly' or 'replace_method_body'. The only usage hint is that it returns 'not_implemented' in v2.8.0, which is more of a limitation than guidance.

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