Code Editor MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral disclosure. It mentions conflict detection via expected_mtime but doesn't describe error conditions, permissions needed, whether operations are atomic/reversible, rate limits, or what happens when files don't exist. For a multi-operation tool with destructive capabilities, this is inadequate.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the formatting could be improved (e.g., bullet points instead of plain text). It's appropriately sized for a 7-parameter tool with multiple operations.

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 (7 parameters, multiple operations, destructive capabilities) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but other gaps remain for a tool with this scope.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining each parameter's purpose and mapping them to specific actions. It clarifies which parameters apply to which operations (e.g., content for write/append, source_path for copy/move), adds encoding options, and explains expected_mtime's conflict detection role. This significantly enhances understanding beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool performs file operations (write, append, copy, move, delete) with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings like read_file, dir_ops, and convert_file_encoding by focusing on write/move/delete actions rather than reading or conversion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from edit_block/edit_blocks which might overlap in functionality.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose file_ops over edit_block for editing, dir_ops for directory operations, or read_file for reading. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about appropriate use cases beyond the basic parameter mapping.

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