Two tools with minimal documentation. edit_file and write_file have basic descriptions (50-60 chars, within acceptable range) but lack critical parameter-level documentation. Input schemas are visible but parameters lack descriptions, a hard violation of the rubric. No output schema documented. No error handling guidance. No tool annotations. Naming is clear (verb_noun pattern), but the implementation is far below production baseline.

• Add descriptions to all parameters. E.g., 'path: Absolute or relative file path to edit. Must be readable and writable.' 'old_string: Exact string to find and replace. Must appear exactly once in the file; if duplicated, the tool returns an error with line numbers.'
• Document output schema for both tools. E.g., '{"success": boolean, "message": string, "line_count": number, "preview": string}' so agents know what to expect.
• Add error handling guidance in tool descriptions. E.g., 'If old_string not found, returns {"success": false, "error": "String not found", "suggestions": [...]}. Try search_file() first to locate the string.'
• Add tool annotations: destructiveHint=true for both (they modify files), idempotentHint=false for write_file (repeated calls overwrite), idempotentHint=true for edit_file (same edit is safe to retry).
• Specify parameter constraints in descriptions. E.g., 'old_string must be unique in the file. If multiple matches exist, the tool fails with a list of line numbers. Use a longer substring to disambiguate.'