patch_html

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The term 'patch' is ambiguous—it does not clarify whether the html parameter replaces the entire element, inner content, or applies a diff. There is no mention of destructiveness, reversibility, permissions, or side effects, which is a significant gap 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It immediately states the action and target, and every word contributes to the basic meaning.

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?

The tool has 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, and it operates among many similar sibling tools. The description omits crucial context about the patch semantics, whether all matching elements or only the first are affected, and whether the operation is destructive. This is too minimal for an agent to reliably select and invoke the tool.

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 explain parameter semantics. It hints that 'selector' is a CSS selector and 'html' is likely the new content, but it fails to clarify the exact format of the 'html' patch (full replacement, fragment, etc.) and does not address 'file_path' beyond its obvious role. This is insufficient given the lack of 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 action ('Patch') and the target ('HTML element(s)'), and specifies the selection mechanism ('by CSS selector'). It distinguishes from siblings like set_attribute (which modifies attributes) and edit_html_range (which edits by range), though the term 'patch' could be more precise about what kind of modification is performed.

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 patch_html versus alternatives like edit_html_range, insert_section, or write_raw_html. No exclusions, prerequisites, or situational context are mentioned.

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