edit_directory_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that edits are deterministic, unsupported instructions fail without changes, writes are atomic, a .bak backup is retained, and no-op edits preserve the existing backup. It omits permissions/auth context, but for a file-edit tool the transactional semantics are the key behavioral facts.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the instruction-format context. Dense but every clause (formats, failure mode, backup behavior) earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is rightly omitted, and the behavioral disclosure is good. But for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage on four inputs, the description leaves the directory/file_name/sync semantics entirely unaddressed, which is a substantive gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially covers one of four parameters (instructions syntax). The required 'directory' and 'file_name', plus the 'sync' flag, are left completely undocumented, forcing the agent to guess their meaning.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Apply a deterministic edit to an outside project script and return a unified diff.' The 'outside project' scope hints at the distinction from edit_script, but it never names or contrasts the sibling explicitly, leaving the boundary to inference.

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 'Context' sentence explains the accepted instruction formats (replace/append/prepend/fenced Lua), which is real usage guidance for the instructions parameter. However, it gives no when-to-use vs edit_script, no prerequisites, and no alternatives for the directory-scoped tool family.

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