apply_xml_edits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: dry_run previews without writing, the write operation uses SHA/match guards and creates a backup, and the expected_sha256 must be passed after preview. This is valuable actionable safety context, though it does not detail failure modes or the exact nature of the 'bounded diff resource'.

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 only two sentences, so it is concise. However, the first sentence is dense and cryptic, using jargon like 'bounded diff resource' without explanation. It could be more transparent while remaining brief.

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 covers the safe application workflow (dry-run then commit) but does not explain what a 'bounded diff resource' is, what the edits do, or any prerequisites. Given the complexity of the edits array and the presence of an output schema, more context would be helpful. It is minimally complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains dry_run and expected_sha256 well, clarifying their roles and relationship. However, it does not elaborate on 'path' or 'edits', which are left to the schema's inherent names. This partial coverage earns a middle score.

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 does not clearly state that the tool applies XML edits to a document. It uses vague language like 'Store a bounded diff resource' and 'write with its SHA/match guards and a backup', which obscures the primary function. The tool name 'apply_xml_edits' carries the meaning, but the description itself lacks a specific verb+resource statement.

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 a clear usage workflow: start with dry_run=true to preview, then set dry_run=false only after inspecting the preview and passing the expected_sha256. This gives the agent explicit instructions on safe invocation. However, it does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusion criteria.

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