Edit File

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate destructiveHint=true (mutation), the description specifies the exact editing mechanism (line-based replacements), the return format (git-style diff), and the directory restriction. This gives the agent practical understanding of how the tool behaves beyond just knowing it's destructive.

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 tightly focused sentences with zero waste. The first states the core purpose, the second explains the editing mechanism, the third covers output and constraints. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct, essential information.

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 destructive file editing tool with good annotations and an output schema, the description provides solid context about the editing approach, constraints, and output format. It doesn't need to explain return values since there's an output schema, but could mention error conditions or permissions. The directory restriction is particularly valuable context.

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 only 33% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining the parameters. It mentions 'line-based edits' which relates to the 'edits' parameter, but doesn't clarify the structure of edits array, the meaning of 'path', or how 'dryRun' interacts with the diff output. The schema does most of the parameter documentation work.

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 specific action ('Make line-based edits'), target resource ('to a text file'), and method ('Each edit replaces exact line sequences with new content'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'write_file' by specifying line-based editing rather than full file overwriting, and from 'read_file' by being a modification tool.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('Only works within allowed directories'), which helps differentiate it from siblings like 'write_file' that might not have directory restrictions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives for different editing scenarios.

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