Edit File

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds critical behavioral constraints: oldText must match exactly including whitespace, must be unique in the file unless replaceAll is set. This provides the agent with necessary operational details.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover the action, the benefit (no re-upload), and the critical constraint. No unnecessary words.

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 essential usage and constraints; with an output schema present, return value details are unnecessary. However, it does not mention error scenarios like multiple matches without replaceAll or missing oldText, which might be useful for robustness. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the agent's decision-making.

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?

Although the input schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, the description adds contextual meaning: it explains that oldText must be unique unless replaceAll is set, and defines replaceAll's purpose in the context of uniqueness. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 verb 'Edit', the resource 'text file on FTP server', and the mechanism: string replacement without re-upload. It distinguishes from siblings such as 'append-file' and 'delete-file' by specifying the exact string replacement approach.

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 usage when making a targeted string replacement without re-uploading the entire file, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like 'append-file' or download-and-edit workflows. No explicit usage guidance beyond the use case.

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