edit_package_swift

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It only says 'directly edit' without disclosing that the entire file is overwritten, that a backup is created by default, or any error handling or permission requirements. The mutation behavior is not fully disclosed.

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, compact sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary action and additional context efficiently, earning every word.

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 description gives purpose and usage but lacks behavioral details that would be expected given the absence of annotations and output schema. It does not mention backup behavior, file overwrite implications, or project prerequisites. The schema partially compensates, but the description remains moderately complete for a simple file-editing tool.

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?

All three parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond what is already in the schema, such as the meaning of packagePath or createBackup.

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 that the tool directly edits the Package.swift file of the active SPM project, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it handles changes not supported by other SPM tools, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says to use this tool for changes not supported by other SPM tools, providing a clear when-to-use condition. It implies that dedicated tools should be used for supported changes, but does not enumerate specific alternative tool names or provide exhaustive 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.