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 states the tool modifies code ('Remove a parameter'), implying mutation, but doesn't mention permissions, error handling, or what happens if the parameter doesn't exist. The example helps, but lacks details on side effects or response format, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse, with no wasted words.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and moderate complexity with 3 parameters, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and provides an example, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error conditions or side effects, which are important for a mutation tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'parameter_name' parameter in the example, but doesn't clarify 'file_path' or 'target' beyond their titles. The example adds some context for 'target', but overall, the description provides partial semantic value without fully documenting all three parameters.

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 parameter by name') and the resource ('from a function signature'), while explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'replace_signature'. It provides a precise scope ('Leaves the body untouched'), making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance with 'Use this when:' and 'Don't use this when:' sections, naming a specific alternative tool ('replace_signature') and clarifying the context for each. This gives clear direction on when to choose this tool over siblings, enhancing decision-making.

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