multi_edit

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Edits or creates' but does not disclose whether edits are atomic, whether creating overwrites existing files, what permissions are required, or what side effects occur.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action. However, it is terse for a mutation tool whose parameters are entirely undocumented, making the brevity partly under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. It does not explain multi-edit behavior, create vs. overwrite semantics, or any prerequisite, leaving the agent unable to invoke it correctly without guessing.

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 0% for both required parameters. The description adds no meaning about file_path (path format? relative/absolute?) or edits (array element shape? edit operation types?). It leaves the agent with no parameter guidance.

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 verb and resource: 'Edits or creates scripts in Studio.' An agent can tell it is a mutation tool for scripts, but it does not distinguish from the sibling write_script tool or clarify the 'multi' aspect of multi_edit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like write_script or create_instance. The description only states what it does, not the context or conditions that select it.

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