check_edit_safe

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

Beyond annotations, describes behavior: fuses signature impact, cyclomatic complexity, test coverage into a verdict; returns blockers, recommended action, confidence, signals; states read-only. No contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose but slightly verbose; still well-structured and each sentence adds value, just not maximally concise.

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?

No output schema, but description fully specifies return JSON structure including verdict, recommended_action, blockers with details, confidence, signals; complete for agent usage.

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 100% and description adds no extra semantics beyond parameter names and types; baseline 3.

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?

Clearly states edit-safety preflight before modifying a symbol or file, distinguishes from assess_change_risk by naming dominant blocker and preservation.

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?

Explicitly says 'before you MODIFY' and names complementary tool assess_change_risk for continuous risk, providing clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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