Edit File

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns by describing edits that replace content. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: exact line-sequence matching, git-style diff output, and restriction to allowed directories.

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 concise sentences, each earning its place: operation and matching semantics, diff return value, and directory constraint. Purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 line-edit tool, the description covers the core mechanics, return format, and access constraint, and the output schema presumably details the diff structure. It could mention failure behavior when oldText does not match, but overall it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 low at 33%, so the description partially compensates by explaining that edits replace exact line sequences with new content, which clarifies oldText/newText semantics. However, it does not clarify the path parameter beyond the allowed-directories note, and dryRun is left to the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Make line-based edits') and resource ('text file'), and emphasizes line-based replacement, which distinguishes it from sibling write_file and read_file tools. The return of a git-style diff also adds a clear functional identity.

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 this is for targeted, line-level modifications and states the allowed-directories constraint, but it does not explicitly explain when to prefer edit_file over write_file or other alternatives. No sibling or condition-based guidance is provided.

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