multi_edit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the atomic nature of the operation ('All edits succeed or none apply'), which is a critical safety trait. However, it doesn't mention default backup behavior, dry-run option, or error handling, which would be useful 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no extraneous words. Every phrase earns its place, including the atomicity caveat.

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?

The tool has five parameters and no output schema. The schema fully documents parameters, and the description adds atomicity context. However, it does not explain expected return values, error behavior (e.g., old_string not found), or the effect of default backup=true, leaving some gaps for an AI 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?

The input schema describes all parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already provides; it only reiterates the concept of multiple find-and-replace operations, which maps to the 'edits' array.

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 uses a specific verb ('perform'), a clear resource ('find-and-replace operations on a single file'), and explicitly scopes to a single file, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool multi_edit_files. It also states atomicity, clarifying the tool's core function.

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 clear context—this is for a single file—but does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it. Since it mentions 'single file', an agent can infer this is for one file at a time, but no explicit exclusion or alternative tool reference is given.

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