edit_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a string is replaced, but does not disclose whether all occurrences are replaced or only the first, whether the edit is irreversible, or what permissions are required. The schema mentions exact matching for old_str, but the description adds little beyond the basic mutation action.

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 that front-loads the action and object. There is no wasted content. The missing apostrophe in 'documents content' is a minor style issue and does not harm clarity.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits important contextual details such as occurrence scope, return value, and side effects. The schema covers parameter semantics, but the overall tool definition leaves meaningful behavioral uncertainty for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 for all three parameters (doc_id, new_str, old_str), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, but none is strictly necessary because the schema already explains the parameters clearly.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Edit a document by replacing a string in the documents content with a new string.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling read_doc_contents, which is a read operation. An agent can immediately tell what the tool does and how it differs.

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 usage is implied: use this tool when a document's content needs a string replacement. However, the description does not explicitly mention when to prefer read_doc_contents instead, nor does it state exclusions such as 'not for reading' or 'not for structural edits.' The comparison to the sibling is left to inference.

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