layerfs_fs_edit

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

Annotations already declare the tool is destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds important behavioral detail beyond that: only exactly one match is accepted, and zero or multiple matches are refused. It also mentions checkpoint creation, though it does not explain what a checkpoint means or what error behavior looks like.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the key refusal condition. There is no filler or repetition.

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 covers the unique matching constraint and checkpoint behavior, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, it leaves parameter meanings and result/error behavior under-specified.

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 0% for five parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It implies branch and old/new text semantics through 'replace exactly one occurrence on a branch,' but never explains path, oldText, newText, or message, nor the required relationship between them.

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?

States a specific mutation: replacing exactly one occurrence on a branch and creating a checkpoint. This distinguishes it from whole-file write or patch-apply siblings, though the phrase 'occurrence on a branch' is slightly compressed and does not explicitly name the file path or old/new text.

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 exact-one-match constraint implies this is for targeted replacements rather than full-file writes, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus layerfs_fs_write, layerfs_fs_apply, or other siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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