Prepare a semantic edit by binding a verified file range with start and end lines before making changes.
MANAGER EDIT: bind one verified file range before changing it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_line | Yes | ||
| file_path | Yes | ||
| start_line | Yes | ||
| include_fragment | No | ||
| expected_last_line | No | ||
| expected_first_line | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It hints at verification ('verified') and preparation ('MANAGER EDIT'), but does not disclose whether the file is actually modified, what verification means, what happens on failure, or any permission/session requirements.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, though it is arguably too terse for a tool with six parameters and no annotations. The structure is clear and the key sequence ('before changing it') appears early.
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 six parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but input semantics and the verification/binding behavior remain largely undocumented.
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%, with 6 parameters. The description only implies a file range via 'one verified file range,' which loosely maps to file_path, start_line, and end_line, but it adds no meaning for expected_first_line, expected_last_line, or include_fragment.
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 states a verb (bind) and resource (one verified file range) and implies a preparatory step before editing. However, 'bind' is opaque and the description does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling aiworkhub_manager_semantic_edit_apply, leaving the exact action vague.
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 'before changing it' gives implied sequencing: use this tool before modifying the file range. There are no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites, and no mention of the apply step by name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.