file_patch

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to convey critical traits such as whether the replacement applies to all occurrences or just the first, how errors are handled (e.g., search string not found), or whether it works on binary files. The term 'incremental' is ambiguous.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a short phrase. While brevity is valued, it lacks structure and omits necessary details, making it borderline underspecified.

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's complexity (3 required parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain return values, error cases, whether the edit is in-place, or any side effects. Minimal viable would require at least a sentence on behavior.

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 67% (search and replace have descriptions, filepath does not). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates 'search and replace'. It does not clarify the format of the search string, whether regex is supported, or the behavior of the replace parameter.

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 '增量编辑文件（搜索并替换）' clearly states the action (incremental edit), resource (file), and method (search and replace). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like file_write (overwrite/create), file_read (read), and file_delete (delete).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as file_write for full rewrites or file_search for locating content. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it.

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