edit_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this is a mutation operation and hints at partial updates, but it does not disclose required-field constraints (code, language, input_schema are required), potential side effects, permissions, irreversibility, or what happens when source code is replaced.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a relevant usage qualifier. Every part adds value and there is no unnecessary text.

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 provided input schema is detailed enough to describe the parameters, but the overall definition is thin for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. An agent would still lack guidance on expected return values, required-field constraints that complicate the 'omit' instruction, and the operational consequences of editing a live tool.

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 the schema already provides detailed parameter meanings. The description adds only the general partial-update behavior and does not materially clarify parameter syntax beyond the schema.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Edit') with a clear resource ('a tool') and explicitly mentions source code, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_tool, fetch_tool, and execute_tool. The edit-versus-create contrast is immediately understandable.

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 gives useful partial-update guidance: 'Omit properties that you do not want to change.' This clearly conveys the intended modification workflow, even though it does not explicitly name alternatives or excluded cases such as creating a new tool.

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