edit_do_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'edit' without disclosing whether it modifies in place, affects existing content, or has any side effects. There is no detail about the nature of the edit operation.

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 short sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified for the complexity of the tool. It is concise but lacks the structure needed to convey the operations and parameters.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters with an enum and nested objects, but the description gives no overview of operations or expected behavior. Without an output schema, the agent is left without enough information to use the tool effectively.

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 coverage is 67%: operation and params have descriptions, but file_path lacks one. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain what 'params' contains or what each operation requires.

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 states it edits a specific part of a do file, which is a clear verb+resource, but 'specific part' is vague and doesn't mention the actual operations (add_variable, add_analysis, insert_section) or distinguish it from write_do_file. It is not a tautology but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of siblings like write_do_file or read_do_file. The context signals list sibling tools but the description offers no usage criteria or alternative mentions.

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