edit_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuine side effect (a .bak backup is retained), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, what happens on a failed or ambiguous instruction, whether the edit is reversible, or any size/complexity limits on 'small' edits.

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, zero filler, with the core action and its side effect front-loaded ahead of the routing context.

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 values need not be explained. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and two completely undescribed parameters, the description leaves meaningful gaps around instruction format, failure behavior, and path semantics.

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 both parameters are required, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at the nature of 'instructions' ('instruction-driven edit') but gives no format, syntax, or constraint guidance, and 'file_name' is never clarified as a path relative to scripts/.

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 (edit), resource (repo-local script), and mechanism (instruction-driven, small edit) plus the .bak backup side effect. The 'repo-local' scoping implicitly separates it from the directory-script siblings like edit_directory_script.

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?

Explicitly says to use it for narrow edits to scripts/ files and names an alternative path for files outside project folders. It does not, however, name edit_directory_script or create_directory_script's counterpart directly, leaving the repo-vs-directory boundary to be inferred from the sibling list.

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