replace_in_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses error behavior ('Returns error if old_text not found') and dry-run support ('Supports dry_run preview'), but omits other behavioral traits like permissions management, atomicity, or success response format. This is moderate transparency, not exhaustive.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and key differentiators. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage guidance, and error/dry-run behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should cover return values and potential failure modes more completely. It mentions error on old_text not found but not success output or count behavior. However, the core purpose and usage context are well covered, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific explanations beyond the schema; it does not clarify count semantics, the purpose of reason, or how dry_run works. It neither helps nor hinders parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Replace a specific text passage in a remote file'. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting 'without loading the full content' and 'Preferred over write_file for editing large files', making its purpose unique.

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 explicitly says 'Preferred over write_file for editing large files', giving a clear alternative and condition for use. However, it does not mention other siblings like search_in_file or read_file, nor does it state when NOT to use this tool, leaving some usage ambiguity.

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