edit_pack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses atomicity ('if ANY item fails, NOTHING is written'), validation against current on-disk content, ordering ('Same-file edits chain in order'), and constraints ('Max 20 items per pack'). It also notes it's free. This covers key behavioral aspects comprehensively.

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 sentences, front-loading the core purpose and key traits. Every sentence adds value: atomicity, validation, chaining, usage context, and limit. No fluff.

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 moderate complexity (2 arrays, atomic behavior) and no output schema. The description explains the atomicity, validation, ordering, and constraints. It does not describe return values, but that's acceptable without an output schema. It could mention error handling or prerequisites for project/token, but the schema covers those.

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% with descriptions for each param. The description adds extra semantics: 'Same-file edits chain in order' clarifies the edits array behavior, and 'Max 20 items per pack' is a constraint not present in the schema. It enhances understanding beyond the structured fields.

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 clearly states the function: 'Batch several edits and/or new files into ONE all-or-nothing operation.' It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing atomicity and batching, and contrasts with 'implement' for heavy work. The verb is specific and resource defined.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use for multi-file changes that are still small and well-defined; delegate heavy work to implement.' This indicates when to use and suggests an alternative. It could have explicitly mentioned edit_file for single edits, but the context of batching makes it implicit, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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