ast-editor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a mutation operation ('replace'), but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like error handling, what happens if the target doesn't exist, whether changes are reversible, or file system implications. The example helps but doesn't cover behavioral traits comprehensively.

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 the purpose, next section provides usage guidelines with clear when/when-not rules, and ends with a concrete example. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy or filler content.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description does well on purpose and guidelines. However, for a tool that modifies source code files, it lacks information about permissions needed, validation behavior, or error conditions. The example helps but doesn't fully compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 provides an example that illustrates all three parameters in use, showing that 'target' identifies the function and 'content' contains the new definition. However, it doesn't explicitly explain each parameter's role or format beyond the example, leaving some interpretation required.

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 ('replace an entire function definition') and specifies what gets replaced ('signature, body, and decorators'). It distinguishes this tool from its siblings by explicitly contrasting with 'replace_function_body' and 'replace_signature', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool ('rewriting a function top-to-bottom') and when not to use it, with clear alternatives named ('replace_function_body' for body-only changes, 'replace_signature' for signature-only changes). This gives the agent precise decision criteria.

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