turingmind_apply_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that reasoning capture is mandatory and becomes part of a permanent audit trail, adding value by warning about irreversibility of recording. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects like authentication requirements or side effects of edits.

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 concise with three short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, providing usage guidance, and highlighting the audit trail. No wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description is too brief. It explains the reasoning requirement but does not cover return behavior or how to use multiple parameters, making it only partially complete.

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 100%, so all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description itself adds no additional explanation for parameters, resulting in baseline score of 3 per guidelines.

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 'Apply code changes' with a specific verb and resource, and emphasizes mandatory reasoning capture. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like turingmind_apply_fix, which may have similar functionality.

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 says 'Use this for ALL file edits', providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites for file edits.

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