simulate_edit_atomic

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the compound operation, return of evaluation result, 1-indexed positions, and meaning of net_delta:0. However, it omits error handling and side effects.

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 sentences front-loaded with purpose. Efficient and no wasted words, though could be slightly more structured.

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?

With 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should provide detailed parameter explanations and return value format. It only covers positions and net_delta, leaving major gaps for a complex atomic operation.

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 has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage. Description only clarifies that line/column positions are 1-indexed and mentions return field net_delta. No explanation for other parameters like workspace_root, language, scope, timeout_ms, leaving significant gaps.

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 that the tool performs an atomic operation: create session, apply edit, evaluate, and destroy. It distinguishes from siblings like simulate_edit and simulate_chain by emphasizing lifecycle management and one-shot nature.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use for quick what-if checks without managing session lifecycle manually' and 'Requires start_lsp to be called first', providing clear when-to-use and prerequisites.

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