pad_edit

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context: only one literal occurrence is replaced, and old_text must match exactly once. It does not explain concurrency behavior, error handling on multiple matches, or the role of expected_revision, so it adds only moderate value beyond the annotations.

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 tightly written sentences with no wasted words. The core operation and the critical old_text matching constraint are front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 explained, and annotations cover the destructive safety profile. The description adequately covers the core edit behavior, but it omits expected_revision semantics entirely and does not mention pad_id or project_id behavior, leaving gaps for a mutation tool with five parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it covers only old_text and new_text semantics. It does not explain pad_id or expected_revision, and expected_revision is a critical optional parameter for a destructive edit tool. Partial compensation leaves significant parameter gaps.

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 verb and resource: replace one literal occurrence of old_text with new_text in a pad. It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like pad_write or pad_append, so it falls short of the top score.

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 gives an important usage constraint — old_text must match exactly once, and surrounding context should be included to disambiguate — which implies when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not state when to use pad_edit instead of alternatives such as pad_write or pad_append, leaving alternative selection unaddressed.

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