ow_patches

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by mentioning explicit replay invalidation notices and their consequence for older checks, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 two compact sentences that front-load the tool's core purpose and add a meaningful domain-specific caveat. There is no padding or irrelevant detail, and the wording is efficient despite minor grammatical peculiarities.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the read-only behavior, so those areas are handled. However, the six-parameter surface with zero schema descriptions leaves filtering and view semantics implicit; agents would need to infer how to use view, after, before, and hero effectively.

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% and the description does not explain any of the six parameters: hero, view, after, before, limit, or locale. Mentioning 'hero changes' is only weakly connected to the 'hero' parameter and does not compensate for 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 uses a specific verb and resource: reading official patch notes and hero changes. This is distinct from sibling tools like ow_replays_search and ow_esports, and the replay invalidation notice adds unique domain-specific scope.

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 makes clear this is the tool for authoritative patch notes and hero changes, and the replay invalidation sentence gives actionable follow-up guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, but the context is generally clear.

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