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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety bar is lower. The description still adds real operational context the annotations cannot: for non-core kinds the live resource is fetched first and the patch is rejected if the object is ArgoCD-managed unless allow_bypass=true. It doesn't describe the response or rollback characteristics, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core action and patch types are front-loaded, and the ArgoCD safety rule and allow_bypass escape hatch follow in priority order. Every sentence carries distinct 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?

For a 9-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials agents need to call it correctly: supported patch types, custom-resource handling, and the ArgoCD gating rule. It omits any note on the shape of the result or dry-run behavior, but those are minor gaps given the schema breadth.

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 every parameter is already documented, including patch_type semantics and the CRD-index provenance of kind/api_version. The description largely restates that guidance ('provide the Kind and api_version from the cluster snapshot CRD index'), so the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Patch a Kubernetes resource') and enumerates the supported patch strategies (strategic merge, JSON patch), which is far more informative than a generic 'modify resource'. It also flags custom-resource support, but never names a sibling such as apply_manifest or delete_resource to disambiguate the write-style choice, so it stops just short of 5.

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?

It gives conditional guidance for custom resources ('use merge or json') and for allow_bypass ('set ONLY when the user explicitly asked to override ArgoCD'), which implies when the bypass path is appropriate. However, it never states when to reach for patch_resource versus the many nearby write tools (apply_manifest, apply_cluster_manifest, delete_resource), so the when-to-use picture is only implied.

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