edit_file

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

The destructiveHint=true annotation already flags this as a mutating operation. The description usefully adds that replacement applies to all occurrences by default, which is meaningful destructive behavior, but omits what happens when old_string is missing or ambiguous, and gives no permission or error context.

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?

Two tight sentences with the mutation semantics front-loaded and no filler. Slightly telegraphic, but every phrase carries 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the core replace mechanics are covered. However, for a destructive edit tool with zero documented parameters, missing error/ambiguity behavior and path semantics leave real gaps.

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%, so the description must carry the burden. It explains old_string/new_string and the replace_all intent, but the phrasing 'all (default) or first only' never maps the two states to the boolean true/false, and 'path' is completely unexplained.

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 (replace) and resource (file), plus the exact substitution semantics of old_string/new_string. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling write_file, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus siblings like write_file or update_config, and no statement of prerequisites (e.g. the file must already exist, old_string must match uniquely). The only conditional information given is the replace_all behavior.

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