simulate_edit

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: changes are in-memory only, baseline diagnostics captured on first edit, version tracking, return of new version number, and 1-indexed positions. This covers key aspects without contradictions.

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 four sentences and 69 words, efficiently front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: the primary action, in-memory nature, diagnostics and versioning, return value, and indexing convention. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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 7 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the core behavior and return value. It does not cover error conditions or session prerequisites, but the sibling tools (create_simulation_session, commit_session) imply the needed context. Adequate for a tool in a larger suite.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides context like 'range edit' and '1-indexed' but does not individually describe each of the 7 parameters (e.g., session_id, file_path, start_line, etc.). The description adds partial meaning but insufficient for complete clarity without 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'apply' and the resource 'range edit to a file within a simulation session'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'apply_edit' by emphasizing the simulation session context and in-memory nature. The one-indexing detail further clarifies the tool's behavior.

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 implicitly suggests usage within simulation sessions by mentioning in-memory changes and baseline diagnostics, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'simulate_edit_atomic' or 'apply_edit'. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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