safari_replace_editor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation replaces ALL content, names supported underlying editors, and states that it uses their native APIs. It does not describe failure behavior when no supported editor is detected, but the core destructive and compatibility-relevant behavior is transparent.

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?

Three tight, front-loaded sentences: action and scope first, then usage boundaries and alternative, then detection mechanism. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 two-parameter replacement tool, the description covers purpose, boundaries, and supported editors, and the schema documents parameters. The only meaningful gap is what happens if the target page has no supported code editor or if replacement fails, which would be useful but not blocking for correct invocation.

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 both text and receipt are already documented. The description adds the 'ALL content' framing and editor-type context, but it does not materially extend what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Replace ALL content in a code editor'), lists concrete editor types, and explicitly separates this tool from safari_fill via the rich-text exclusion. An agent can immediately tell what the tool acts on and how it differs from siblings.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use ONLY for code editors'), concrete examples, and an explicit when-not-to-use rule with a named alternative ('NOT for rich text editors like Medium/LinkedIn (use safari_fill for those)'). This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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