claude_edit_json

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'JSON response validation and retry' which hints at some behavior, but doesn't explain what happens when validation fails, what the retry mechanism entails, whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be needed, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, with no wasted words or redundant information. It's front-loaded with the core concept. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of clarity - it's arguably too brief for a tool with 6 parameters and complex behavior involving validation and retry logic.

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 complexity (6 parameters, JSON validation logic, retry mechanism) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool actually produces, what validation errors look like, how retries work, or what the editing function entails. For a tool that presumably interacts with Claude AI models and performs JSON validation, this leaves critical gaps in understanding.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., systemPrompt vs appendSystemPrompt), provide examples, or clarify edge cases. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 'Edit with JSON response validation and retry' is vague and tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'claude_edit_json' without specifying what is being edited or what resource is involved. While it mentions JSON validation and retry mechanisms, it doesn't clearly state the core function (editing what? Claude responses? code? documents?). It fails to distinguish from siblings like 'claude_edit' or 'claude_refactor'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't explain when JSON validation is needed versus using 'claude_edit' without validation, or when to choose this over 'claude_generate_json'. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases that would help an agent select this tool appropriately.

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