kimi_edit_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to mention critical traits such as behavior when old_string is not found, whether all occurrences or only the first are replaced, or if the file must already exist. The only behavioral detail provided is 'exact string match', which is minimal.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 no annotations and no output schema, so the description fails to explain return values or error behavior. While the schema covers the main parameters, the description leaves gaps about side effects, failure modes, and any prerequisites (e.g., file existence), making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's context.

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 75% (three of four parameters described), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, and the workFolder parameter remains undocumented, but the main required parameters are clearly described in 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 clearly states the tool performs a find-and-replace edit in a file with exact string matching. This specific verb+resource+method distinguishes it from sibling tools like kimi_write_file (full file write) and kimi_read_file (read only).

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 implies use for targeted edits via 'find-and-replace edit' but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of scenarios like 'use for small changes vs. write_file for full rewrites', leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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