Replace exact text safely in one file

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

Description details SHA-256 verification, exact occurrence counting, backup, and no shell execution. Since annotations provide limited behavioral info (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description fully compensates with valuable safety and execution context.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and immediately conveys key safety features. No extraneous words.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description could be more complete. It mentions safety features but does not explain the return value or side effects (e.g., file modification). Basic coverage, but leaves some gaps.

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 only 17%, with only 'project' having a description. The tool description does not explain parameter semantics (e.g., expectedSha256, expectedOccurrences), relying on parameter names which may be ambiguous.

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 title and description clearly state a specific operation: replace exact text in one file with safety features. It distinguishes from sibling tools like write_file or apply_patch by emphasizing precision and verification.

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?

While it mentions 'no shell or script execution', no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apply_patch or write_file. The agent must infer usage from context.

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