edit_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation saves to disk, which is important, but it does not explain how properties are merged or replaced, whether validation occurs, or what happens on error. Lacks detail on permissions and response behavior.

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 concise sentence that communicates the core action and resource type. No wasted words, and it is front-loaded with the verb 'Set'.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and sparse parameter documentation, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or how the properties object interacts with existing resource properties, leaving significant gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'path' refers to a resource file and 'properties' are the properties to set, but gives no information about the structure or allowed keys for the properties object beyond the schema.

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 it sets properties on an existing resource file and saves it back to disk. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from related tools like create_resource, read_resource, and update_property.

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 phrase 'existing resource file' implies it is not for creating new resources, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_resource or batch_set_property. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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