propose_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the server applies the hunks and stages the result through the same diff/commit flow, so the agent knows this does not write directly. It does not cover failure modes (e.g. hunks that fail to apply), permissions, or whether an existing staged op is affected.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the differentiation from propose_write and the reliability rationale are 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core flow (hunks applied server-side, result staged like a normal op) adequately. Gaps remain around error handling and the many LLM sampling parameters, but the critical staging semantics are present.

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 70%, so the schema documents most of the 10 parameters (path, seed, stop, think, options, instruction). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying the instruction drives hunk generation, leaving the sampling params entirely to 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?

States a specific verb and mechanism (local model emits SEARCH/REPLACE hunks) and explicitly positions itself against the sibling propose_write. An agent can distinguish it from propose_write without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear selection context — prefer this for large files and small models where whole-file emission is unreliable — and frames itself as a variant of propose_write. It stops short of an explicit exclusion list (the 'use propose_write for new files' rule lives in the schema, not the description).

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