multi_edit_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does disclose the critical atomicity property ('All file edits succeed or none apply'), which is not present in the schema. However, it omits other important behaviors such as return format on failure, permission requirements, and the fact that backups are always created (though the schema's backup field hints at this).

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 long and front-loaded with the key purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler. It efficiently states the main action and the critical atomicity guarantee.

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 description, combined with the rich schema, is adequate for understanding the tool's primary function. However, it leaves gaps: no explanation of return value, error behavior on failed atomic operation, or verification steps beyond include_content. For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, a bit more context (e.g., explicit mention of rollback/backups) would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already provides meaningful descriptions for all parameters (e.g., backup says it's ignored for multi-file, dry_run says preview, include_content says include final content). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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+resource structure: "Perform coordinated edits across multiple files atomically." It clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'multi_edit' by emphasizing the multi-file aspect and atomicity.

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 itself does not mention alternatives, but the backup parameter description explicitly says 'For single-file use multi_edit instead,' providing a clear usage boundary. The atomicity clause also implies this is for coordinated multi-file operations where all-or-nothing behavior is desired.

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