Apply structured edits to a spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a re-validated spec and that editing is lossless, but it does not disclose error handling (e.g., invalid ops), whether the original spec is mutated, or potential side effects.

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 two sentences with no extraneous words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds relevant context about caller responsibility and lossless property. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return value (edited, re-validated spec) and caller duties. It lacks details on error scenarios or confirmation of immutability, but is largely complete for a straightforward edit 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description redundantly lists the ops format but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 applies a list of edit ops (replace, set, append, remove) to a spec and returns the edited, re-validated spec. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (convert, parse, preview, render) which do not modify the spec.

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 implies the tool is for modifying a spec, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It mentions that the caller re-renders the result, but provides no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use this tool.

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