lsp_change

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the effect (syncs server state) and the consequence of not calling it (stale diagnostics), but does not describe side effects like whether it triggers re-diagnostics or requires an active session. Still, it adds significant behavioral context.

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 a clear first sentence followed by a when-to-use section. It's appropriately concise, though the warning could be slightly tighter. The key information is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with two required parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and the parameter semantics. It lacks details about return values, but the output schema likely handles that, keeping completeness high.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that 'text' is the new full text of the file, which clarifies the expected format. However, it doesn't specify the path format or encoding of file_path, but given the simplicity, a 4 is justified.

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 that it notifies the server of a file change by sending the full text, and explicitly frames it as the equivalent of pressing Save. This is distinct from other lsp_* tools like lsp_open or lsp_close, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: immediately after modifying a Scheme file via filesystem tools, and warns of stale content if skipped. This makes the usage context crystal clear and helps the agent decide when to invoke it over alternatives.

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