binary_patch_preview

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

Annotation readOnlyHint=true is consistent with 'preview'/'verify'. Beyond the annotation, the description discloses the non-obvious state coupling: the tool emits a token that a later copy-on-write apply depends on, which is genuine context an agent would otherwise miss. It stops short of describing failure behavior when expected bytes don't match.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the verification/preview action is front-loaded ahead of the token detail. It is arguably too compressed given four undocumented parameters, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations covering inputs, and 0% schema description coverage on four required parameters, the description should explain parameter meaning, hex format, offset units, and the mismatch outcome. It supplies only the token/apply lifecycle, leaving the bulk of invocation-relevant context missing.

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% for all four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. 'Verify disk bytes and preview replacement' loosely gestures at expected_hex vs replacement_hex, but path and offset are never explained, and no hex format or offset-base conventions are given.

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?

States specific verbs and resource: 'Verify disk bytes and preview replacement' plus the copy-on-write apply that consumes the token. It implicitly distinguishes itself from binary_patch_apply through the preview/apply pairing, though it never names the sibling outright.

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?

'Retain its token for a copy-on-write apply' implies the preview-then-apply workflow, so the intended usage is inferable. There is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it, no mention of what happens on a byte mismatch, and no direct pointer to binary_patch_apply as the follow-up call.

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