ast-editor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly describes the matching behavior ('by stripped text equality'), provides an example, and implies file modification. However, it doesn't mention error handling, permissions needed, or what happens if the import isn't found. It adds meaningful context beyond basic parameters.

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 with purpose statement, matching criteria, usage guidelines, and example - all in four concise sentences. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, and key information is 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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description does well on purpose and guidelines but has gaps. It explains one parameter well but not the other, and while the output schema handles return values, behavioral aspects like error cases aren't covered. Good for basic use but incomplete for edge cases.

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 must compensate. It explains 'import_text' parameter meaning ('pass the exact import line you want to remove') and provides an example. However, it doesn't explain 'file_path' parameter at all. The description adds significant value for one parameter but leaves the other undocumented.

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 a matching import statement') and resource ('from a source file'), with precise matching criteria ('by stripped text equality'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'remove_import_name' for multi-name imports, providing clear 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?

The description provides explicit guidance with 'Use this when: You want to remove an unused import' and 'Don't use this when: You want to remove one name from a multi-name import -> use `remove_import_name`.' It names the alternative tool and specifies the exact scenario when not to use this tool.

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