ida_patch_bytes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the side effect (writes to IDA database, not original file) and the underlying API (idc.patch_byte()). It could add more about prerequisites or reversibility, but for a simple mutation tool it is reasonably transparent.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: action, key clarification (no file modification), and use case. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the action, effect, and typical use. It could mention the need for an active IDA session or how to verify patches (e.g., ida_list_patches), but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters (address, hex_bytes). The description adds only a minor detail about using idc.patch_byte() and does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 states the verb ('Write bytes'), the resource ('IDA database at an address'), and the implementation ('using idc.patch_byte()'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it does NOT modify the original file, only the database, making it unambiguous.

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?

Provides a clear use case ('Useful for NOP-ing bossix checks found by ida_scan_bossix'), which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., bossix_patch exists as a sibling), so it stops short of full alternative differentiation.

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