check_before_editing

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

The description discloses the tool checks for specific items (risks, failed attempts, fragile-file warnings) but does not describe the return format, side effects, or whether it is read-only. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden, and the lack of output schema details leaves some ambiguity.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of sibling tools that cover other memory functions, the description adequately outlines the tool's role. However, it could be more complete by describing the return type or typical usage pattern.

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% for the single parameter 'file_path', which already has a clear description. The tool's description adds context about configuration or deployment files, but this does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 that the tool checks for risks, failed attempts, or fragile-file warnings before editing, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like recall_project_context or remember_decision, which handle remembering or recalling context rather than checking preconditions.

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 explicitly says 'Always call this before modifying configuration or deployment files,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or contrast with alternative tools like recall_project_context, which could also provide relevant context.

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