design_edit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that edits are applied, but fails to mention whether edits are atomic, what happens on failure, permissions required, or any side effects (e.g., overwriting existing content). The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no superfluous information. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is overly terse at the expense of necessary details.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is inadequate for a mutation tool. It does not provide enough context to use the tool correctly, especially regarding the format of edits and expected behavior.

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?

The input schema has 3 parameters (path, edits, projectId) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what each parameter represents or the expected format (e.g., what constitutes a valid 'edits' array). The phrase 'direct string edits' gives a vague hint but is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 ('apply direct string edits') and the target resource ('one Claude Design project file'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying a direct edit operation, which contrasts with create, delete, get, list, and other operations. However, the term 'string edits' is somewhat ambiguous and could be more specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like design_create (for creating files) or design_get (for reading). There are no criteria for when edits are appropriate or any mention of prerequisites or constraints.

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