akb_edit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes failure behavior ('If old_string is not found or appears multiple times, the call fails with a clear error'), scope limitation, and the effect of replace_all. This is strong behavioral detail for a mutation tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then constraints, then usage guidance and the alternative. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 7-parameter schema with full coverage, the description is largely complete for selecting and invoking the tool. It could have explicitly named the full-document update alternative (e.g., akb_update or akb_put) and noted result/commit behavior, but what is present covers the main decision points.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces old_string uniqueness and replace_all behavior, but adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which already documents each parameter thoroughly.

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 and resource: 'Edit a single document by replacing exact text,' making the tool's core function immediately clear. It also distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly contrasting with akb_grep for multi-document find-and-replace and implying a difference from full-body update tools.

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 gives explicit guidance: use this tool for targeted single-document edits, including inline image insert/replace/remove, and use akb_grep with replace for find-and-replace across many documents. It also clarifies that old_string must be unique unless replace_all is used, which is a concrete usage condition.

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