replace_directory_line

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It discloses the confirmation requirement and that it is a full replacement. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwrites all fields?, permissions needed) and doesn't describe return values.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences. First sentence communicates purpose, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description is fairly complete. It covers the core behavior and the confirmation flow. However, it does not explain what 'fully replace' entails in terms of field behavior (e.g., null handling).

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 parameters are well-documented in schema. The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 the action ('replace') and resource ('directory line'), and the endpoint method. It distinguishes from siblings like update_directory_line, though 'replace' vs 'update' could be explicitly contrasted.

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 describes the two-step human-in-the-loop process: call first without confirmation_token, show summary to user, then call again with token. This is strong usage guidance, though it doesn't specify when not to use this tool or alternatives.

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