create_diff

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses key behavioral trait: shows diff and requires user approval before applying changes. This is critical for a mutation tool. Does not elaborate on what happens if approval is denied or if there are side effects, but the core behavior is clear.

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 sentences and a short exclusion statement. No fluff, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, usage constraints, and behavioral context. Lacks information about return value (e.g., diff preview or approval result), but not essential for invocation.

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% (4/4 parameters described). Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; e.g., 'filePath' is already described as 'existing file' in schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it modifies existing files via diff with user approval. Explicitly contrasts with file creation, aiding sibling differentiation.

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 when to use (instead of writing files directly) and when not to use (for new files). Lacks reference to a specific alternative creation tool, but sibling tools list does not include a create_file tool, so guidance is practically sufficient.

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