webdav_edit_remote_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'git-style diff preview' and 'intelligent edits,' but fails to clarify what 'intelligent' means, whether edits are atomic or batched, authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens during concurrent access. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently communicates core functionality without redundancy. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, target, and key feature, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters, low schema coverage (33%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits like error handling or atomicity, and expected outcomes. The mention of 'git-style diff preview' hints at output but doesn't clarify format or scope, leaving critical gaps for agent invocation.

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 low at 33%, with only the 'dryRun' parameter documented in the schema. The description adds no explicit parameter information beyond implying edits involve text replacement. It doesn't explain 'path' format, 'edits' array structure, or 'oldText'/'newText' semantics, failing to compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 specific action ('Apply intelligent edits'), target resource ('a file on a remote WebDAV server'), and unique capability ('with git-style diff preview'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like webdav_update_remote_file by emphasizing intelligent editing with preview functionality, not just basic updates.

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 usage for editing remote files with preview capability, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives like webdav_update_remote_file or webdav_read_remote_file. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative context mentioned.

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