edit_file_advanced

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions backup support but does not disclose that the default mode is 'overwrite' which can destroy existing content without warning. The tool's potential destructive behavior is not transparent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and appends key features in parentheses. No unnecessary words.

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 (6 parameters, multiple modes, encoding options, backup), the description is minimal but the schema covers details. It does not explain the behavior of different modes or provide warnings, but for a tool with a rich schema, it is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds little extra meaning. The term 'partial editing' relates to the mode parameter but does not elaborate on the modes or provide usage details beyond the schema. 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 description '高级文件编辑功能（支持部分编辑、多编码、备份等）' clearly identifies it as an advanced file editing tool with features like partial editing, multiple encodings, and backup. It distinguishes from basic write_file by labeling it 'advanced', but could be more specific about the exact capabilities.

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 this tool should be used when advanced editing features are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like write_file or read_file_advanced. No exclusion criteria or specific context guidance is provided.

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