edit_latex_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions editing operations but fails to describe critical traits like file system effects (e.g., overwriting, backup behavior), error handling (e.g., if file doesn't exist), or LaTeX-specific considerations (e.g., syntax validation). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Edit an existing LaTeX file by replacing, inserting, or appending content') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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's moderate complexity (5 parameters, mutation operations) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral context, it doesn't fully compensate for the gaps in a file-editing tool, keeping it at a baseline level.

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 all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond implying general editing operations, which aligns with the schema's 'operation' enum. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Edit') and resource ('an existing LaTeX file'), and specifies the types of operations ('replacing, inserting, or appending content'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_latex_file' or 'read_latex_file' beyond the 'existing' qualifier, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_latex_file' for new files or 'read_latex_file' for viewing. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage context implied at best.

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