edit_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the 'exactly one mode' constraint, but fails to mention the force parameter, the destructive nature of replacing content, or what happens if the file does not exist. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 that efficiently lists all operational modes without redundancy. While it could be more structurally clear (e.g., bullet points), it is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core verb and resource.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, making it a complex tool. The description covers the main modes but omits critical context such as force semantics, file existence handling, return values, and potential side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool with full confidence.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining the parameter combinations for each mode (replacements list, content+start_line, content, insert_at_line+text). However, it does not clarify the force parameter, the distinction between text and content, or explicitly mention end_line, leaving some parameter semantics ambiguous.

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 identifies the tool as editing a script file and enumerates the precise modes of operation, which distinguishes it from siblings like read_script, create_script, and validate_script. The verb 'edit' and resource 'script file' provide immediate clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use edit_script versus create_script or read_script, nor any exclusions or alternative recommendations. It implies the tool edits existing files but does not explicitly state this prerequisite or any conditions under which another tool would be preferable.

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