perch_edit

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait – that a Yjs settle runs by default so the edit persists across reload – which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, as a mutation tool it says nothing about failure modes (e.g., no-match behavior), permissions, or reversibility, so the disclosure is partial.

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 tight sentences with the core operation front-loaded and the persistence note second. No filler, though 'surgical' is slightly promotional rather than informative.

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?

Six parameters, a mutation operation, no annotations, and no output schema – the description is thin for that complexity. It omits prerequisites, what happens when the target string is absent, and any error/response context, leaving an agent without enough to call it safely under edge conditions.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including nth, pane, settle, and replaceAll. The description adds only the rationale for the settle default ('survives a reload') and no syntax or format detail for oldString/newString. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'find/replace in a pane'. An agent grasps the operation immediately, but the description never distinguishes it from siblings like perch_patch or perch_write, which occupy similar edit space. Clear purpose, no sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer this over perch_patch (also an edit tool) or perch_write. The agent must infer the scenario from the phrase 'find/replace' alone, with no exclusions or alternatives named.

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