dry_run_edit

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: cloning to tempfile, never modifying original, auto-injecting path, stopping on op failure with partial results. No contradictions.

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?

Three concise sentences, each providing essential information without redundancy. The first sentence states the core function, the second adds behavioral details, and the third gives usage context.

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 (previewing multi-step edits), the description covers all critical aspects: operation, behavior on failure, return values, and purpose. No output schema exists, but the description adequately describes outputs.

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?

The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that the harness auto-injects the path parameter into each op's args, which is not evident from the schema alone. It also clarifies the structure of ops as {tool, args}.

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 verb ('Apply'), resource ('list of {tool, args} ops to a tempfile clone'), and deliverables ('unified diff and verify report'). It distinguishes from siblings like apply_edits by emphasizing the dry-run nature.

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 advises using this tool to 'preview risky multi-step edits before committing,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context with sibling apply_edits implies distinction.

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