Create Edit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses that nothing reaches users until commit_edit, that edits expire after about seven days, and that abandoned edits are harmless but can be discarded with delete_edit. This is substantial context beyond a simple 'create' action, though permission requirements and error cases are not covered.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then workflow, then lifecycle/cleanup. Every sentence adds useful information, with 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, this description is complete enough. It explains what the edit is for, how to use it in the broader workflow, how it relates to sibling tools, and what happens if it is abandoned.

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 package_name is already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Open a draft edit') and the single output ('return its ID'). The wording immediately differentiates this from lifecycle siblings like commit_edit, delete_edit, and describe_edit without relying on the title.

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?

Provides an explicit workflow: stage changes against the returned edit ID, inspect with describe_edit, then commit once. It names the relevant sibling tools and makes the intended lifecycle clear, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide exclusion conditions.

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