document_dry_run_edit

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

With no annotations, the description bears full transparency burden. It states the tool returns a diff without saving, indicating read-only behavior. However, it does not discuss potential side effects, permission requirements, or whether validation is fully stateless.

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 sentence with no wasted words. However, it is too minimal to be considered well-structured, missing parameter explanations and usage context.

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 the complexity (3 required params, one being a nested object 'patch'), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the role of PatchIR, the meaning of diff, or how this fits into an edit workflow, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the three parameters (patch, doc_id, revision_id). The schema itself lacks descriptions, so validation entirely lacks semantic guidance for inputs.

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 validates PatchIR and returns a diff without saving, distinguishing it from sibling tools like document_apply_edit which applies edits, and document_diff which computes diffs without validation context.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies dry-run validation before applying but does not state prerequisites, or when to choose dry run over direct apply or diff.

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