script_patch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: exact byte matching, whitespace sensitivity, failure on multiple/zero matches, filesystem scan trigger, and lack of Ctrl+Z undo. This gives a comprehensive risk profile 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 compact: six short sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the core definition first. No padding or redundancy.

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?

Even without annotations, the description covers purpose, failure behavior, side effects, and undo limitations. An output schema exists, so return values are presumably documented elsewhere. For a 5-parameter tool, this is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by tying replace_all to failure behavior and old_text to exact matching, but these are also implied in the schema descriptions. No substantial additional parameter semantics 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 opens with 'Anchor-based string-replace edit on a .gd file', clearly stating the verb (edit via string replacement) and resource (.gd file). It distinguishes from siblings like script_create and script_attach by focusing on patching existing file content, and further details exact-match semantics.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it is for exact text replacement within a script, with explicit failure modes and caveats. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the behavior is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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