claude_edit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'retry and model selection', it fails to describe critical behavioral aspects: what 'edit files' entails (e.g., file modifications, potential overwrites), how retries work, error handling, or output format details. For a tool with 14 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 ('Edit files via Claude Code CLI') and adds key features ('with retry and model selection'). There's no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for a tool with many parameters. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from features.

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 complexity (14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how edits are applied, error conditions, or interaction with sibling tools. While the schema covers parameters, the description fails to provide the holistic context needed for safe and effective use, especially for a file-editing operation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions 'retry' (hinting at maxRetries) and 'model selection' (hinting at the model parameter), but doesn't provide additional context or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('Edit files') and the mechanism ('via Claude Code CLI'), which is specific and actionable. It also mentions 'retry and model selection' as key features. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (claude_edit_json, claude_generate, claude_generate_json, claude_refactor), which would be needed for a score of 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 its siblings or alternatives. It mentions 'retry and model selection' as features, but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over claude_edit_json or claude_generate, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.

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