modify_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'WRITE permission' but does not explain side effects, destructive potential, or what happens during actions like revert or reconcile. The schema reveals modes and force flags, but the description omits behavioral 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?

The description is a single sentence listing actions and permission, which is concise and has no wasted words. However, it lacks structure such as separating actions or providing additional context. It is efficient but could be more organized.

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 the tool has 8 actions, 7 parameters, and an output schema, the description is very incomplete. It does not explain the differences between actions, when to use each mode, or what the return value looks like. The output schema is present but unused in the description.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly lists all supported file modification actions (add, edit, move, delete, revert, reconcile, resolve, sync) and specifies 'WRITE permission', clearly indicating it is a write operation for files. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_files (read-only) and other modify tools.

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 lists the actions but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like modify_changelists or query_files. It implies file modification contexts but lacks when-not instructions or differential advice.

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