edit_shader

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the exclusive mode requirement and that replacements are literal search/replace. However, it does not disclose what happens if both modes are supplied or neither, nor any side effects, permissions, or error 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 sentence that delivers essential information without padding. Every phrase is meaningful, making it highly efficient.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must compensate. It explains the core mode selection but leaves out the purpose of 'force', file path requirements, and potential failure modes. For a mutating file-edit tool, this is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke it in all circumstances.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage. The description clarifies that 'content' is for a full replace and 'replacements' is a list of literal search/replace items, which adds meaning for two of the four parameters. However, it does not explain the 'path' or 'force' parameters at all, and the schema itself gives no hints.

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 tool edits a shader file, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes between two modes (content and replacements) and uses 'exactly one mode' to disambiguate, separating it from siblings like read_shader or create_shader.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs. alternatives like edit_script or read_shader. It does not mention prerequisites, preferred use cases, or when the replacement mode might be preferable over content mode.

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