ssh-edit-block

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'edit specific text blocks' without detailing whether the operation is destructive, requires permissions, handles missing oldText, or is idempotent. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose and unique value proposition. While appropriately front-loaded, it could benefit from slight structural expansion for completeness.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not cover prerequisites, error conditions, return behavior, or when to use alternatives. The tool has 8 parameters and potential side effects, yet the description provides minimal context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply repeats the idea of editing text blocks. No additional context for parameters like expectedReplacements or privateKeyPath is provided.

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 edits specific text blocks in remote files, and positions itself as a token-efficient alternative to full rewrites. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh-read-lines, ssh-search-code, and ssh-write-chunk.

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 small edits via 'token-efficient alternative to full rewrites', but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like ssh-write-chunk for full rewrites or remote-ssh for general commands. No when-not-to-use or alternative conditions are provided.

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