edit_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses UTF-8 handling, newline convention, and match constraints (exact, unique unless replace_all). However, it omits permissions, error handling, and whether the file is created if missing.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. Every word is informative. Front-loaded with the core operation and key constraints.

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 an output schema exists, the description covers operation, constraints, and a usage hint. It mentions UTF-8 and newline convention. Could add error handling or file existence requirement, but overall adequate for a well-defined edit tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates partially. It explains old_string (non-empty, exact match) and replace_all (changes behavior). Path and new_string are implied but not detailed. Adds moderate value beyond names.

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 it performs search-and-replace on an existing UTF-8 file, which distinguishes it from siblings like read_file, write_file, and run_command. It specifies the action and resource concisely.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Read the file first and copy the exact span.' It also clarifies conditions (old_string must match exactly once unless replace_all is true). However, it does not explicitly contrast with write_file for full rewrites.

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