Edit File

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds behavioral details: sequential application, first occurrence matching, and preview via dryRun. These go beyond what annotations provide, giving the agent a clear picture of the tool's operation.

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 concise with two sentences, no extraneous text. It front-loads the core operation and provides essential guidance, making it efficient for the agent to parse.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown), return values need not be explained. The 4 parameters are covered in the description and schema. The description could mention the ignoreWhitespace parameter, but it's not critical. Overall, it provides sufficient context for the tool's use.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing exact matching and context for oldText, and highlighting dryRun for preview. This contextual nuance helps the agent use parameters effectively.

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 it applies sequential literal string replacements to a file, limited to first occurrence per edit. It specifies that oldText must match exactly with context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like 'apply_patch' or 'search_and_replace', which might offer similar functionality.

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 provides usage tips such as requiring exact matching, including 3-5 lines of context, and using dryRun for preview. However, it does not give guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for simple replacements vs. patching), nor does it state when not to use it.

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