Propose an edit (published for review)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does this well: it discloses that the document is never edited directly, that auto-apply may occur, that the response reports `applied` or `edit_failed`, and that searches must match exactly once. This gives the agent an accurate safety model and expected outcomes.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, and each subsequent sentence adds directly useful operational detail. There is no filler or redundant scaffolding.

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 description covers the important behavioral dimensions: non-destructive proposal, review flow, auto-apply, status values, and failure recovery. Since there is no output schema, it does not enumerate the full response shape, but it provides enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the exact-match requirement already present in the schema but does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond it. Both `request` and `edits` are already adequately documented in the schema.

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 a specific verb ('applies'), a resource ('the session's file'), and a concrete mechanism ('search/replace edits') that publishes a proposal. It clearly distinguishes itself from read-only siblings and from propose_files by emphasizing that it edits an existing file's content rather than proposing files or compiling.

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 gives clear operational context: changes are proposed for review, auto-application is possible, and the caller should inspect `status` to determine the outcome. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as propose_files, but the context strongly implies when this tool is appropriate.

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