Patch Asm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one real constraint (processor assembler support required), but says nothing about whether patching is persistent, undoable, or what happens on assembly failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite trailing. No filler, though it is terse enough that it omits useful context.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema should disclose more: persistence, failure behavior, and how it relates to patch_bytes. The assembler-support note is helpful but insufficient on its own.

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 the schema already documents items, timeout, and instance_id. The description only echoes 'address(es)' and 'instruction text', adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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+resource: assemble instruction text and patch it at address(es). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling patch_bytes (raw bytes), even without naming that sibling. It is clear but stops short of explicit sibling differentiation in text.

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?

Usage is implied by 'assemble instruction text' but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no mention of patch_bytes as the alternative for raw-byte patches. The 'requires processor assembler support' line is a prerequisite, not routing guidance.

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