apply_edit

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the mutation behavior: automatic .bak-<timestamp> backup before first edit, version snapshot only on the first edit of a round, later edits reusing that snapshot, and version.desc representing the pre-edit state. It also discloses structured engine errors, the exact return shape, the auto-reload side effect, and a rollback path.

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 front-loads the core purpose in the first clause and every subsequent sentence adds a distinct operational fact: backup generation, version collapsing, return values, auto-reload behavior, and rollback. It is dense but contains no filler or repeated schema 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 mutating tool with six parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description defines the return tuple, version semantics, backup and rollback path, and follow-up workflow with wait_for_annotations. No critical input needed to call the tool or react to its result is missing; only the exact structured-error shape is summarized rather than enumerated.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: mode defaults to replace, delete ignores new_content, and session_id causes same-round edits to merge into one version snapshot. It also explains the meaning of version and version.desc in the response, which the input schema does not cover.

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 states a specific operation: '对指定位置应用修改' (apply modifications at a specified location), immediately clarifying that this is a location-targeted edit tool. It also distinguishes its workflow from annotate_document by stating that the annotation window reloads automatically, and the loc-kind list reinforces that this is structural-position editing rather than a template or search operation.

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 strong workflow guidance: call this after receiving annotations, do not manually call annotate_document afterward, call wait_for_annotations again for the next round, and use list_versions/restore_version if the edit result is wrong. It does not explicitly compare against template_replace or find_replace, so the selection boundary among sibling edit tools is left somewhat to inference.

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