Diff Before After

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the essential behavior: the tool mutates state via the action tool and reports a before/after diff. However, it says nothing about failure handling, the timeout's effect, revertibility, or whether the snapshot is preserved — material gaps for a mutating orchestration 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the pipeline in chronological order and zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 5-parameter mutating orchestration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the workflow and the return (unified diff) but omits error semantics, timeout consequences, and what happens to the binary if the action fails. Adequate as a minimum but not 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (including action, action_args, timeout, instance_id) is already documented in structured data. The description adds no per-parameter meaning such as valid action names or expected diff granularity, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names three concrete actions (snapshot decompilation, run a modification tool, return unified diff), which pinpoints this as an orchestration/wrapper tool rather than a raw patcher. It is distinguishable from patch_asm/patch_bytes/apply_patch by its snapshot-and-diff framing, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this wrapper versus calling the modification tool directly, nor any prerequisites, exclusions, or mention of alternatives. The use case (verify a patch's effect) must be inferred from the sentence alone.

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