vfx_shader_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses ordering, atomicity ('all or nothing'), the uniqueness precondition on each old, the matching exception via all: true, and explicitly warns that the source is not echoed back. It stops short of permissions, conflict/retry semantics on concurrent edits, or whether the hash can be used as a precondition.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its atomicity, then the precondition, then the return contract. Every sentence carries non-redundant information.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (new hash + verdict), the atomicity guarantee, and the precondition. The main residual gap is concurrency: 'latest version' hints at a race but no stale-hash or conflict behavior is described.

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 coverage is only 50% (the edits array items have no field descriptions), and the description compensates substantially by defining the occurrence constraint on 'old' and the meaning of 'all: true'. However, it never explicitly defines 'new' as the replacement text nor whether it may be empty to delete a match, so a gap remains.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: changes a node via exact text replacements, applied in order to the latest version. That distinguishes it in spirit from a full-rewrite sibling like vfx_shader_write, but no sibling is named, so the agent still has to infer the split.

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 mechanics imply the usage case (targeted text substitution rather than wholesale writes), but the description never says when to pick this over vfx_shader_write or vfx_shader_read, and gives no guidance on retry/conflict behavior when operating on 'the latest version'.

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