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 describes the tool's behavior by specifying what is replaced (body) and what is preserved (signature, decorators), but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or side effects. The example adds practical context but doesn't fully compensate for the missing annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and a concrete example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure is logical and efficient 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 complexity (function modification), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description does well with purpose, guidelines, and an example. However, it could better address parameter details and behavioral aspects. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is good with 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an example that illustrates the use of `target` and `content` parameters, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain `file_path` or provide detailed semantics for all three parameters, leaving some gaps.

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 only the body of a function') and resource ('a function'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like `replace_signature` or `replace_function`. It explicitly defines what is preserved (signature and decorators) versus what is changed (implementation).

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 ('changing the implementation while keeping the interface stable') and when not to use ('changing parameters or return type'), with clear alternatives named (`replace_signature` or `replace_function`). This directly addresses sibling tool differentiation.

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