sed_edit

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 efficiency characteristics but doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like whether this is a destructive operation (though implied by 'edits'), error handling, permission requirements, or side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence establishes the core functionality, and the second provides valuable context about appropriate use cases. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the 'what' and gives some usage guidance, but lacks important behavioral information about safety, permissions, and error handling that would be crucial for an AI agent to use this tool responsibly.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already documented in the schema. It mentions 'sed patterns' which relates to the 'pattern' parameter, but this is already covered by the schema's example. No additional semantic context is provided for any parameters.

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 with specific verbs ('make small edits', 'pattern replacements', 'simple text transformations') and identifies the resource ('files'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'awk_process' and 'perl_edit' by specifying 'sed patterns', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'quick_replace' or 'line_edit' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning 'efficient for single-line changes, pattern replacements, and simple text transformations', which suggests when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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