concept_patch

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden and does so well: it flags optimistic concurrency ('if_match required (stale_write)'), atomic ordered application of edits, shallow-merge frontmatter semantics, and idempotency of append/remove. It omits failure/permission behavior, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded and dense; nearly every clause conveys a distinct behavior (concurrency, atomicity, merge semantics, return fields, batch alternative). The telegraphic fragment style trades some readability for compactness, but there is little wasted text.

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 mutation tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers return values ('content_hash, findings'), concurrency, atomicity, and frontmatter behavior. Missing only error/permission details, so it is close to complete.

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 coverage is only 55%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the important ones (if_match as a stale-write guard, frontmatter as shallow-merge with null deletion, frontmatter_append/remove as idempotent list edits), but leaves 'unset' and 'reason' unexplained and doesn't cover all 11 parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Edit-style patch of a concept body') and enumerates the patch modes (old_string/new_string/replace_all or an edits array). It also names the sibling concept_batch for the multi-concept case, so an agent can distinguish it without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Many concepts: concept_batch, up to 50 operations in one commit,' giving a condition and an alternative. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement or a stated prerequisite beyond the if_match note, keeping it short of a 5.

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