batch_apply_edits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals atomicity, all-or-nothing validation (if any search string is not found, NO files are modified), rollback on failure, and the default dryRun preview mode. These are non-obvious safety behaviors beyond what the schema alone would imply.

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 three sentences, with the core purpose and safety guarantee front-loaded, followed by a concrete usage recommendation. Every sentence adds new information—no repetition of schema details, no filler.

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 batch mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key constraints: atomicity, rollback, validation, and dryRun preview. It lacks an explicit statement of the return value or error shape, which an agent would need to interpret results, but given the schema's completeness and the concise behavioral summary, the overall context is solid.

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 already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the effect of validation on all edits and the default behavior of dryRun, enriching the semantics of the 'edits' and 'dryRun' parameters beyond their schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('multiple file edits'), and adds the distinctive qualifiers 'atomically' and 'with rollback on failure'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling command-execution tools by emphasizing batch file mutation behavior.

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 recommends using dryRun: true to preview changes, which is concrete operational guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like run_safe_command or verify_refactor_safety, nor any exclusions. The usage context is implied—batch, validated edits—rather than compared against siblings.

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