bossix_patch

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

With no annotations, the description provides useful behavioral detail: it flips conditional jumps, NOPs test/cmp, and replaces CALL with xor eax,eax. It does not mention side effects such as persistence or preconditions, but the disclosed logic goes beyond simple 'patch' and helps the agent understand what will happen.

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 two concise sentences, front-loads the purpose, and wastes no words. It packs meaningful behavioral details into a compact format.

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 is sufficient for the tool's complexity, given the detailed schema and output schema. It explains the patch selection logic but omits potential side effects (e.g., whether the patch affects the IDB or disk), which would improve completeness slightly.

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%: both parameters have detailed descriptions, including an explicit warning about the 0x prefix for address. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: 'Auto-patch a bossix check at an address.' It specifies the resource (bossix check) and the action (auto-patch), and differentiates from sibling tools like ida_patch_bytes by describing the automatic patch-selection logic based on instruction type.

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 usage context: use this for bossix checks where the patch type can be automatically determined. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the specialized nature and the contrast with generic patch tools (ida_patch_bytes) is reasonably clear.

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