edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: smart indentation conversion, encoding preservation across multiple encodings, CRLF/LF-insensitive matching, newline-style preservation in mixed files, .editorconfig awareness, and a dry-run preview mode. It lacks disclosure of failure/error behavior and return semantics, but the non-obvious mutation-safety traits are well detailed.

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?

Six sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and each subsequent sentence earning its place by disclosing a distinct, non-obvious behavior (indentation, encoding, line endings, editorconfig, dry-run). It is longer than average, but nearly every sentence prevents a real-world correctness bug.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers behaviors well but leaves gaps: it never states what a successful call returns, what happens when old_string is not found or ambiguous, or how replace_all/expected_hash/indent_style interact behaviorally. Core editing semantics are covered; edge and result semantics are missing.

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 100%, so all 10 parameters are already documented (including aliases, replace_all, indent_style, and expected_hash). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; it revisits dry_run but without new information. Baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Replaces old_string with new_string in the specified file.' This identifies a targeted in-file substitution and separates it from read/write-style siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named siblings patch and multiedit, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose edit over siblings such as patch, multiedit, or write, and no exclusions or alternative conditions. The only usage hint is 'Use dry_run=true to preview changes,' which is a safety option rather than a selection rule.

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