Edit File

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond them: it returns a git-style diff of changes, uses exact-match replacement (so a near-miss silently fails), and is sandboxed to allowed directories.

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?

Four short sentences, none wasted, with the core operation front-loaded and the return/scope facts following compactly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the safety profile is carried by annotations. However, common prerequisites for this kind of edit tool (e.g., reading the file first so oldText matches) and the interaction between dryRun and the diff are unstated.

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?

With only 33% schema coverage the description needs to compensate for undocumented params. It reinforces the exact-line-match semantics of edits but says nothing about 'path' and only indirectly touches dryRun (via 'returns a git-style diff'), so compensation is partial.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('make line-based edits to a text file') and specifies the mechanism ('replaces exact line sequences with new content'), which distinguishes it from the bare write_file sibling. It does not explicitly name write_file as the alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use-this-instead-of-write_file guidance. 'Only works within allowed directories' is a constraint, not selection guidance, and 'each edit replaces exact line sequences' describes mechanics rather than when the tool is appropriate.

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