modify_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Local LLM understands code and applies changes' and mentions token savings. It does not disclose that it modifies files in place, whether backups are created (though schema has a backup option), or that it may use AI backend. Important behaviors like dry-run and review options are not mentioned.

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 short with three sentences, but there is slight redundancy ('Local LLM' repeated). It is front-loaded with the purpose. While efficient, it could be more concise by merging the first two sentences.

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 3 parameters (one nested), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what happens after modification, error scenarios, file existence requirements, or return values. For a file modification tool, more context is expected.

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 67% (moderate). The description adds minimal value beyond schema: 'natural language instructions' aligns with the instructions parameter, but does not explain filePath or options. The nested options object is not summarized. With moderate coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for the gap.

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 modifies files using natural language instructions. It mentions 'Local LLM File Modification' and 'Applies edits using natural language instructions,' which provides a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like batch_modify or refactor, so it's not a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when to avoid it, or compare to siblings. The token savings note is more marketing than usage direction.

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