ast-editor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior ('If removing the only remaining name, removes the entire import statement') and constraints ('Python-only'), which are not covered by the input schema. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like file modification or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 (a mutation operation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key behavior, but lacks details on parameter 'file_path' and potential error cases, leaving minor gaps.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides an example that clarifies the semantics of 'module' and 'name' parameters, but doesn't explain 'file_path' at all. With 3 parameters and only partial coverage in the description, it doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap, leaving one parameter 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 name from a Python `from <module> import a, b, c` statement') and resource (import statement), with explicit sibling differentiation ('If removing the only remaining name, removes the entire import statement' and distinguishing from 'remove_import'). It precisely defines the tool's scope and distinguishes it from alternatives.

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 usage guidelines with 'Use this when: You want to remove a single name from a multi-name import' and 'Don't use this when: You want to remove the entire import line -> use `remove_import`', including clear alternatives and exclusions. This directly addresses when to use this tool versus its sibling.

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