sed_execute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses key side effects: files are 'edited in-place' with 'a backup (.sed.bak)', and expressions are 'combined into a single sed command for atomicity'. This goes beyond a vague mutation warning and provides meaningful operational detail, though it stops short of explaining failure handling or rollback scenarios.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The first sentence states the action and subject, while the second adds crucial details about in-place editing, backups, and atomicity. There is zero waste or repetition.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description offers a robust overview. It covers the queue concept, per-file scope, backup creation, and atomicity. Minor gaps include not clarifying what happens if no expressions are pending or if the queue is cleared after execution, but these are not essential for using the tool correctly.

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 fully documents the single optional 'path' parameter with a clear description: 'If provided, only execute expressions for this file. Otherwise execute all files in queue.' The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so the baseline of 3 applies given the high schema coverage.

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 tool's function: 'Execute all pending sed expressions in the batch queue.' This includes a specific verb ('execute'), a clear resource ('pending sed expressions in the batch queue'), and distinguishes it from siblings like sed_preview or sed_add. It also adds important context about in-place editing and backup creation.

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 when to use the tool: when there are pending sed expressions that need to be applied. It mentions the batch queue and the optional path filter, giving clarity on scope. However, it does not explicitly reference alternatives or state when not to use it, so it does not fully meet the 'explicit when/when-not' standard.

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