pad_edit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose key behavioral traits — literal (non-regex) matching and the exactly-once constraint — which is genuine value. But it omits failure behavior (what happens with 0 or 2+ matches, error vs. no-op) and the concurrency role of expected_revision, both relevant for a mutating tool.

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 sentences totaling about 23 words. The core action is front-loaded ('Replace one literal occurrence...') and the constraint follows immediately. Every word earns its place; no filler or schema repetition.

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 no explanation. But for a mutation tool with zero annotations and a 5-param schema at 20% coverage, the description should clarify expected_revision's concurrency purpose and the failure mode when old_text is absent or appears multiple times. The core operation is covered, yet these invocation-critical details are left to the agent to infer.

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 only 20% (only project_id is documented), so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for old_text ('must match exactly once; include surrounding context to disambiguate') and new_text as the replacement. But pad_id and especially expected_revision (likely an optimistic-concurrency guard) remain unexplained, leaving a meaningful gap in a 5-parameter 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 ('Replace'), resource ('pad'), and precise semantics ('one literal occurrence of old_text with new_text'). The 'literal' qualifier and 'one occurrence' scoping clearly differentiate it from siblings like pad_write (full overwrite) and pad_append (add content), so an agent can select it correctly without opening schemas.

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 concrete invocation guidance: old_text must match exactly once, and the agent should include surrounding context to disambiguate. This tells the agent how to construct a valid call and when it will fail. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or state when to prefer pad_write/pad_append, so exclusion guidance is absent.

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