sitebay_site_edit_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an edit operation but doesn't mention permissions required, whether edits are reversible, if there are rate limits, or what happens if the file doesn't exist. The description lacks critical behavioral context 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses minimal sentences. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter discrepancy slightly reduces efficiency. The front-loaded purpose statement is effective.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides basic purpose and parameter explanations but has a critical parameter name mismatch. The output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. However, for a file editing mutation tool, more behavioral context would be expected.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains fqdn, file_path, and content parameters, but the input schema shows a different third parameter named 'file_edit_using_search_replace_blocks' instead of 'content'. This creates confusion and incomplete parameter documentation.

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 action ('Edit a file') and resource ('in the site's wp-content directory'), providing specific context about the target location. It distinguishes from siblings like site creation or backup tools by focusing on file editing, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other file-related operations that might exist.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison to sibling tools like sitebay_site_shell_command which might also manipulate files. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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