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 states the tool modifies files (implied mutation) and provides an example, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like error handling, file permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, or format-specific constraints. The example adds some context but leaves gaps.

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?

Perfectly structured with purpose statement, usage guidelines, and example in three compact sections. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose immediately clear.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description does well with purpose and guidelines. However, it lacks complete parameter documentation and behavioral details needed for full understanding of a file 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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description includes an example showing 'target' and 'content' usage, which adds some semantic meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain 'file_path' or provide complete parameter documentation, leaving significant 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 the value') and resource ('existing key in a JSON, YAML, or TOML file'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_key' and array modification tools. It provides a concrete verb+resource combination with clear scope.

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?

Explicitly provides 'Use this when' and 'Don't use this when' sections, naming specific alternative tools ('add_key', 'append_to_array', 'remove_from_array'). This gives clear contextual boundaries and direct guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings.

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