fs_edit

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

No annotations provided, so description must convey behavior. It states failure condition and the replace_all parameter. It implicitly indicates destructive nature (modifies file) without explicitly saying so. Lacks warnings about permissions or file creation, but sufficient for common use.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. Every sentence adds value: first defines purpose, second adds constraints and usage details.

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?

Despite simple nature, missing crucial context: no explanation of id vs path (likely file identifier and filesystem path), no return value, no mention that it modifies the file in-place. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient.

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 only 20% (only replace_all has a description in schema). Description adds no additional meaning for id, path, old_string, or new_string beyond what the schema provides (which lacks descriptions). It does not clarify what 'id' or 'path' refer to, nor the expected format of old_string/new_string.

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?

Clearly states the tool does a string replacement in a file. The verb 'replace' and resource 'string in a file' are specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like fs_write (write entire file) or fs_search (search pattern).

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?

Provides explicit behavior: fails if old_string is not found, and the replace_all option for multiple occurrences. No alternatives or when-not-to-use mentioned, but for a simple replacement tool, this is adequate.

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