apply_text_edits

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behaviors but only mentions atomicity and non-overlap. It omits details about encoding, line endings, concurrency via base_hash, and behavior on overlap.

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 a single, concise sentence with no superfluous content, effectively front-loading the core purpose.

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 tool complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists but unused), the description is too sparse. It provides only the minimal function without addressing usage nuances or parameter roles.

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 0%, meaning top-level parameters have no descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter semantics, leaving path, bom, newline, encoding, base_hash, final_newline unexplained.

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 the tool applies multiple non-overlapping line-range edits in a single atomic write, distinguishing it from siblings like replace_literal or replace_regex that handle single edits.

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 implies usage for multiple non-overlapping edits in a batch, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons with alternatives like apply_text_spans or replace_block.

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