edit_file

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

No annotations exist, so description must carry full behavioral burden. It mentions backups but omits details on regex, case-sensitivity, error handling, or storage location of backups.

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?

Single sentence is concise but lacks structure for a tool with 6 parameters. Would benefit from bullet points or brief parameter descriptions.

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?

Given 6 parameters and output schema, description is insufficient. Does not clarify the use of 'edits' vs simple old/new text, or the 'ctx' parameter.

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 has 0% description coverage and description adds no parameter meaning. Parameters like path, old_text, new_text, replace_all, edits, ctx are not explained.

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?

Description clearly states it applies targeted text replacements in an existing file, with backups. This distinguishes it from siblings like write_file (creates/overwrites) and delete_file (deletes) etc.

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?

Implies use for targeted replacements but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like write_file or restore_backup. No when-not guidance provided.

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