edit

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals destructive behavior, and the description does not add further context such as irreversibility, in-place modification, or behavior when old_string is not found. The description restates the basic action without disclosing additional side effects or requirements.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and parameters. It is concise with no filler, earning a perfect score for structure.

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 is minimal but, combined with the full schema and destructive annotation, provides a basic understanding of the tool. However, it lacks usage guidance and does not elaborate on the effects of the operation or edge cases, making it adequate but not comprehensive for a destructive edit tool.

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 schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description references old_string and new_string in context, but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain replace_all behavior or path resolution beyond the schema.

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 'Replace *old_string* with *new_string* in a text file' uses a specific verb ('Replace') and identifies the resource ('text file'), clearly distinguishing it from read-only siblings like read/grep/find/ls and write (which creates/overwrites files). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies use for editing existing text files but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., write for full-file rewrites) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, though the intended context is inferable from the wording.

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