aya_codigo_editar_linhas

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral details: it requires a SHA-256 precondition (hash match before editing), performs backup, handles encoding, and includes auditing. These go beyond the annotations, though it does not explain the failure behavior when the hash does not match or what the backup/audit entails.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the key features (interval editing, hash precondition, backup, encoding, audit). It is efficient and avoids fluff, though its brevity sacrifices essential detail. This is a reasonable trade-off for a tagline but insufficient as a full functional description.

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 is destructive, has no output schema, and lacks parameter documentation. The description gives only a high-level summary and omits return values, error handling, or the consequences of a hash mismatch. For a file-editing operation with these precautions, the context is incomplete and the agent cannot confidently anticipate outcomes.

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?

The schema has 7 parameters with zero description coverage, and the description does not explicitly explain any of them. It only indirectly hints at 'intervalo' (matching inicio/fim) and 'SHA-256' (matching hashEsperado), but critical parameters like caminho, novoTexto, and the optional ones remain undocumented. With 0% coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 'Edicao cirurgica por intervalo' (surgical editing by interval), clearly indicating a line-range edit operation, and lists distinct features (SHA-256 precondition, backup, encoding, audit). It differentiates from siblings like aya_arquivo_substituir_literal (literal replace) and aya_arquivo_escrever_seguro (safe write) through its focus on interval-based editing. However, it does not explicitly name the file resource except in the tool name, and the phrasing is terse.

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 its alternatives, no conditions for choosing it, and no exclusions. For a mutating tool with many siblings, this is a notable gap. The agent is left to infer context from the name and schema alone.

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