patch_bytes

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 states the tool patches bytes, implying mutation, and gives hex format examples. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., impact on analysis, reversibility), permissions required, or error conditions. This is minimal transparency 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 consists of two sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a practical example. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and hex format. The output schema removes the need to explain return values. However, it could be more complete by noting how the patch interacts with the database (e.g., undoable, affects analysis) or specifying the address format.

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 add meaning. It provides a clear example for the hex_bytes parameter (e.g., '90 90 90'), but does not specify the expected format for the address parameter (e.g., hex, decimal, with or without 0x). This partial coverage is adequate but not thorough.

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 uses a specific verb ('Patch') and resource ('bytes at an address') to clearly state what the tool does. The example with hex bytes distinguishes it from read-only tools like get_bytes, and the verb 'patch' implies write modification, differentiating it from other write tools like set_comment.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to similar tools like set_comment or make_code. The context is purely functional without any usage context.

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