edit_cycle

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

Annotations are present but only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds context by naming the steps (apply_patch, index refresh) which imply mutations, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or what happens to existing data. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the core concept ('Post-edit loop') and efficiently list the steps. No verbosity or irrelevant information is present.

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?

The description adequately explains the tool's composite nature and high-level workflow, but it omits important details such as return value format, error handling, and the meaning of 'diagnostics.' Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), more completeness is expected.

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 baseline is 3. The description ties parameters to workflow steps (e.g., 'target' for change_kit preview, 'patch' and 'path' for apply_patch), adding contextual meaning beyond the schema's individual descriptions. However, it does not provide additional format or syntax details.

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 identifies 'edit_cycle' as a post-edit loop that combines multiple steps (change_kit preview, apply_patch, index refresh, since, diagnostics). It distinguishes from siblings by presenting a composite workflow that fuses individual sibling tools like apply_patch_workspace_file and change_kit into a single operation.

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 implies the tool is for performing an entire edit-verify-reindex-respond workflow, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this composite tool versus calling individual sibling tools (e.g., apply_patch_workspace_file, since). No when-not or alternative recommendations are provided.

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