ast-editor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by specifying behavioral details: it removes only the first matching element (not all), uses stripped text equality for matching, works across multiple file formats (JSON/YAML/TOML/Python), and explains format-specific target syntax (dotted paths vs. variable names). It doesn't mention error handling or permissions, but provides substantial operational context.

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 efficiently structured: first sentence states core functionality, second explains format variations, then clear usage guidelines, and finally concrete examples. Every sentence adds essential information with zero redundancy, and key details are front-loaded.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but has output schema), the description provides complete operational context: purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details, parameter semantics, and examples. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, and the description covers all other aspects thoroughly.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: 'file_path' is implied through examples showing file operations, 'target' is explained as 'dotted path to the array' for config files or 'module-level variable name' for Python, and 'value_match' is defined as the value to match using 'stripped text equality'. The examples further clarify parameter usage with concrete syntax.

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 the specific action ('Remove the first element matching value_match') and resource ('from an array/list'), with explicit differentiation from sibling tools like 'delete_key' for removing whole keys. It specifies the exact matching criteria ('stripped text equality') and supported file formats (JSON/YAML/TOML config arrays AND Python module-level list literals).

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 explicit guidance with 'Use this when: You want to remove a specific item from a list' and 'Don't use this when: You want to remove a whole key -> use `delete_key`', naming a clear alternative. It also implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'append_to_array' by focusing on removal rather than addition.

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