check_edit

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, which leaves the tool's actual behavior largely undisclosed. The description does add useful result-state semantics (a pass returns null, a skip explains why, a failure should be surfaced to the user), which is genuine value beyond the annotations, but it omits permissions, cost and whether the check itself mutates anything.

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?

It is short, but the telegraphic, ungrammatical phrasing ('A failure looks wrong: tell the user its say') makes several sentences hard to parse and the front-loaded intent competes with ambiguous fragments. Brevity here costs comprehension rather than adding it.

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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it checks, the retry loop, and the pass/skip/fail result states. Missing are the concrete failure categories it can report and what the caller is expected to do with a skip, which keeps it merely 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 description coverage is 100%, so file, source and session are already documented, including the note about old paths surviving renames. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or usage nuance, so the baseline of 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 verb 'check' and resource 'edit' are present, and the description clarifies it validates an edit against its source take on dimensions like sound, picture, sync and rules. However, the phrasing is garbled ('tell the user its say', 'rules with a check') and no sibling tool is named or contrasted, so the agent gets only a rough sense of purpose.

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?

It does give a trigger ('Check each new edit before you show it') and a follow-up loop ('Fix each failure in a new version and check that'), which is more than implied usage. But it names no alternative tools and gives no exclusion conditions, so the routing guidance is partial.

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