apply_program_patch

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

Annotations already establish the destructiveHint, and the description adds valuable transactional context: any failing operation rolls back the entire patch. This clarifies all-or-nothing behavior beyond what the structured annotations provide, though it leaves out details like auth requirements or expected_revision handling.

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 repetition. Every word contributes meaning, including the critical atomicity and rollback behavior.

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 a complex untyped operations array and an undocumented expected_revision parameter, yet the description does not clarify the patch operation format or concurrency expectations. Although an output schema exists, the missing operation syntax and parameter semantics leave the description incomplete for reliable invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it only vaguely indicates that 'operations' are program edits. It does not explain the structure of operation items, the role of project_id, or the meaning of expected_revision, which are important given additionalProperties: true on operation objects.

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 ('Apply') and identifies the resource as 'program-only edits,' with the distinctive atomic batch behavior stated directly. It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools that handle single edits or non-program operations.

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 implies use for batched program edits and implies single-edit tools are alternatives, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus replace_rung, insert_rung, or other sibling edit tools. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given.

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