edit

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

The description discloses the key behavioral constraint that only one occurrence is replaced, which is valuable for an agent. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention what happens if old_string is not found, whether the operation is destructive/reversible, or any authorization requirements. Still, the 'one occurrence' note adds meaningful transparency beyond just stating 'edit'.

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 a single, succinct sentence that front-loads the action and includes the essential constraint. There is no fluff or repetition, making it appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has 4 required parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description is minimal. It lacks essential context about project_path, error behavior, return value, and prerequisites (e.g., file existence). This is under-specified for a tool with this many required inputs.

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 description names old_string and new_string, giving them clear roles, but it does not explain file_path or project_path. Since the schema has 0% description coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to clarify the relationship between file_path and project_path or their expected formats. Only partial parameter meaning is provided.

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 function: replacing one occurrence of old_string with new_string in a file. The verb 'replace' is specific, and the 'one occurrence' constraint distinguishes it from a bulk write or a replace-all operation. It is immediately clear from the description what this tool does.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'write' or 'bash'. There is no mention of 'use this for targeted edits' or 'do not use this for full file rewrites'. Given the sibling tools, the description lacks explicit usage direction.

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