replace_lines

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, what happens if the file is not open, if undo is supported, or the safety profile (e.g., no mention of confirmation).

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, front-loaded with the core action. No filler words. Every part earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple line replacement tool with no output schema, the description covers the basics but omits important context like error handling (e.g., out-of-range lines), impact on undo stack, and concurrency (e.g., multiple files). Adequate but not thorough.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant value: it explains that 'begin' and 'end' are 1-based and inclusive, and that 'path' targets a specific open file. The 'text' parameter is implied by 'with text'. This covers all four parameters effectively.

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 lines') and the resource ('in the active file with text'), and specifies the range is inclusive and 1-based. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'replace_selection' by focusing on line ranges.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'replace_selection' or 'insert_snippet'. The only usage hint is about using the 'path' parameter to target a specific file, but no exclusions or when-not-to-use advice.

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