system_modify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: 'state read-back verification' and the claim of safety. However, it does not explain what 'safely' means, whether changes are reversible, or what happens if verification fails.

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 no filler. Every phrase earns its place: operation, target, what is updated, and the verification 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 description gives the core purpose and a safety mechanism, but because there is no output schema and no annotations, an agent still lacks information about return values, error behavior, and whether at least one patch is expected. It is adequate but has clear gaps for a mutating tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that patches update scripts, attributes, and configuration, but the actual schema only exposes script patch parameters and no explicit attribute/config parameters, making that mapping slightly loose and not essential for parameter understanding.

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 ('modifies'), a specific resource ('existing system'), and the scope of changes ('scripts, attributes, and configuration'). The word 'existing' distinguishes it from system_create, and the system-level scope differentiates it from lower-level script/attribute tools.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It implies use for modifying an existing system, but it does not mention alternatives such as system_create, script_set_source, or attribute_set, nor does it state conditions that should route an agent to a sibling tool.

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