quilt_edit

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool replaces a unique old_string, records authorship exactly, and avoids attribution guesswork. It does not mention error handling or side effects but adds behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 very concise: one paragraph with no redundant words. It front-loads the purpose, explains the key benefit, and gives a usage tip. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

While parameters are well-covered and behavior is described, the description lacks context about the overall workflow (e.g., whether the edit is staged or auto-committed) and does not mention return values. For a file edit tool in a versioned system, more context would be helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage. The description adds context for 'why' (ticket/task) and 'actor' (optional but useful for subagents), enhancing meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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 it edits a file by replacing an old string with a new one, and records authorship. It distinguishes from a raw editor but not explicitly from sibling tool 'quilt_write'. The verb 'edit' and resource 'file through Quilt' are specific.

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 advises to pass 'why' and prefer this over plain file edit when coordinating a fleet. It gives a clear usage context but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives like 'quilt_write'.

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