edit_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the transactional workflow (begin→edit→commit) and mentions rollback/preview/undo, indicating state management. It also warns about JSON escaping inconsistencies causing client-side parsing failures. While not detailing every side effect, it provides meaningful 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidance and a technical caution. 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?

For a complex tool with 9 parameters and 7 actions, the description leverages the schema's parameter descriptions and adds the core workflow and usage context. While an example would be helpful, the combination of schema and description is sufficient for a capable agent.

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 covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds workflow context linking actions (begin→edit→commit) and practical guidance on consistent JSON escaping for string parameters containing quotes or backslashes. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it is the default multi-file edit path with transactional operations (begin, edit, commit, rollback/undo). Explicitly distinguishes from edit_batch for single-file edits, providing a specific verb+resource and sibling differentiation.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when unsure about changes' and directs single-file edits to edit_batch. This gives clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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