code.patch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions a syntax check but does not clarify what happens on failure (e.g., does it abort, rollback?), whether the operation is destructive, or any side effects. Lacks detail on error handling and permissions.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the verb and resource. However, it could be structured to briefly explain parameters. No wasted words, but could be more informative within the same length.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not cover return values, error cases, or how the syntax check integrates with replacements. An agent would lack key details for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain parameters beyond hinting at oldText/newText. The expectedReplacements parameter is undefined, and path format is omitted. Does not compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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 applies exact text replacements and runs syntax checks for JS-like files. It uses a specific verb ('apply') and resource ('text replacements'), which distinguishes it from siblings like file.write (write entire files) and code.review (review code).

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 usage for JS-like files but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., file.write or code.review). No when-not statements or alternative names are given.

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