replace_docstring

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the operation as replace/insert, implicitly a write action, and specifies the new_docstring must be a valid Python string literal with triple quotes. However, it lacks explicit mention of overwriting behavior or error conditions, though the core behavior is clear.

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 succinct with about 5 sentences plus an example, no fluff. Well-structured: purpose, format note, usage guidelines, example. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters and an output schema (which likely covers return info), the description covers purpose, format, when-to-use, and differentiation. It lacks explanation of file_path but that is typical. Almost complete for a focused editing 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 explain parameters. It explains target (function/class name with example) and new_docstring (must be valid Python string literal with triple quotes). file_path is not explained but is standard. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 tool replaces or inserts a Python docstring on a function or class, and specifies it is Python-only. It distinguishes from sibling tools like replace_leading_comment and indicates no equivalent for non-Python files.

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 states when to use (add/update docstring without touching body) and when not to use (editing # comment above, use replace_leading_comment; non-Python files have no equivalent). Provides clear context for alternative selection.

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