cascade_remote_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the READY-handle prerequisite and that replacements must be exact, but says nothing about what happens when oldText is not found, whether edits are atomic, or permission requirements for a mutation.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite second. No filler, though the final sentence largely restates the schema's required nested fields.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the action, target, and prerequisite but omits failure modes, matching behavior, and what the call returns or changes. Adequate, not complete.

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 67%, near the middle baseline. The description names oldText/newText, but this merely restates the nested schema's required fields, and it adds no format or matching semantics (e.g. uniqueness, multiline behavior) 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Apply exact text replacements to a file on an opened remote target.' An agent can distinguish this from cascade_remote_read, cascade_remote_grep, etc., but the description does not explicitly separate it from the closely related cascade_remote_write sibling.

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?

Gives one prerequisite ('Requires a READY handle'), which is useful context. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose editing over cascade_remote_write or which sibling handles other mutations, leaving the choice to inference.

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