Edit file

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: atomicity ('if one fails, nothing is saved') and concurrency safety ('only the changed span is sent, so concurrent edits by collaborators are preserved'). These are non-obvious traits an agent cannot infer from destructiveHint=false or idempotentHint=false, though failure modes and error surface are not described.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: match semantics first, then uniqueness rule, then ordering/atomicity, then concurrency rationale. No filler and no repetition of structured fields.

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?

Covers the essential risk areas for a mutation tool with no output schema: what happens on partial failure, why exact matching matters, and how concurrency is handled. Gaps remain around prerequisites (must the file exist? what happens on a missing file) and whether an edit can create a file.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining the uniqueness contract on old_string and the effect of replace_all, which the schema only labels generically ('Exact text to find', 'Replace every occurrence'). Ordering semantics of the edits array are also clarified, though the project_id/path resolution rules are left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Replace exact text in a text file') and clarifies the semantics as exact-match find-and-replace including whitespace. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling typst_write_file, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face when choosing between them.

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?

Provides operational constraints (unique match required unless replace_all=true, edits applied in order) which implies this is the surgical-edit path. However, it never says when to prefer this over typst_write_file or typst_upload_file, and no exclusions are given.

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