edit_document

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 fails to state whether the replacement applies to all occurrences or only the first, what happens if old_str is not found, or whether the edit is reversible. The schema adds the exact-match requirement, but the description itself reveals no behavioral detail beyond the core operation.

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, front-loaded with the action, with zero wasted words (minor grammar aside). Every element serves the purpose.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description falls short by omitting critical semantics such as whether all occurrences or just the first are replaced and the behavior when old_str is absent. These gaps prevent an agent from invoking the tool correctly in all cases.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the old-to-new replacement relationship but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 operation: edit a document by replacing a string with a new string. The verb (replace/edit) and resource (document content) are specific, and the find-replace nature naturally distinguishes it from the sibling read_doc_contents, which only reads.

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, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The sibling read_doc_contents is never referenced, so an agent gets no help choosing between reading and editing for a given task.

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