Edit File

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-readOnly. The description adds detail about line-based edits and a git-style diff output, which enhances transparency. It does not contradict annotations but could elaborate on error handling for unmatched oldText.

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 three concise sentences, front-loading the action and purpose. No redundant information; each sentence adds value.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, 2 required) and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, return value, and constraints. Missing details like partial failure handling or atomicity, but sufficient for typical use.

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 low (33%: only dryRun has description). The description clarifies that edits replace exact line sequences, adding meaning to oldText/newText beyond the schema. However, path remains unexplained, and dryRun description duplicates schema.

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 uses specific verbs ('Make line-based edits') and identifies the resource ('text file'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like write_file (whole file overwrite) or read_file. It also mentions the return format (git-style diff) and a constraint (allowed directories).

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 precise line replacements (not appending or full rewrites) and mentions the directory constraint. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like write_file or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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