edit_file

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: matching is literal, the target file must already exist, and the return value reports how many replacements occurred. It does not disclose failure behavior when old_string is not found or whether the file is modified in place without backup.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a clear one-sentence summary followed by Args/Returns blocks. The Args list omits response_format, making it slightly incomplete, but overall it is efficient and free of filler.

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 rich schema descriptions and destructiveHint annotation, the description is mostly sufficient: it explains the core operation, the literal-match constraint, and the return contract. The main gaps are no-match behavior and in-place/backup semantics, which are not covered elsewhere.

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 only lists parameter names and does not explain their meaning. The input schema itself provides detailed descriptions for path, old_string, new_string, count, host, and response_format, so the description adds little semantic value beyond 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?

The description states a specific operation: exact text replacement in an existing file, and explicitly adds 'not regex'. This distinguishes it from write_file-style whole-file overwrites and from any regex-based substitution tool.

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?

Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit: 'existing file' suggests it is not for creating files, and 'not regex' rules out regex substitutions. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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