patch_bytesWrite bytes to one or more addresses in IDA Pro to modify binary code or data for reverse engineering.
Patch bytes at address(es). Each item: {address, bytes}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | List of {address, bytes: [int,...] or hex_string} | |
| timeout | No | Timeout in seconds | |
| instance_id | No | Instance id override |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the input shape. It never says whether the patch mutates the IDB permanently, requires a save_idb to persist, is reversible, or what address space (VA vs. file offset) applies.
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 short sentences, zero padding, and the core operation is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.
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, no output schema, and no persistence or address-space notes is under-documented. An agent does not know if the change is durable, volatile, or scoped to a session.
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's 'Each item: {address, bytes}' repeats the schema's own wording without adding syntax, format, or unit details beyond it. 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Patch bytes at address(es)'), naming the operation precisely. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like patch_asm or apply_patch, which is where it falls short of a 5.
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 versus patch_asm (assembly-level patching) or apply_patch. No prerequisites, no conditions, no alternatives are named, leaving the agent to infer selection entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.