kubectl_patch

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

The description only says 'Update field(s)', which is redundant given the tool name and annotations flagging destructiveness. It adds no details about side effects, reversibility, or behavior differences between patch types.

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?

Single sentence, concise, front-loads purpose. However, it lacks structure and could be expanded to cover key details without becoming verbose.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and destructive behavior, the description is incomplete. It does not explain when to use different patch types, how patchData vs patchFile work, or what the return value looks like.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not enrich parameter meanings beyond the schema's descriptions; no extra explanation for patchType or patchData/patchFile alternatives.

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 tool updates resource fields and lists three patch types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like kubectl_apply (applies entire manifests) and kubectl_create (new resources).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or which patch type to choose for different scenarios. Only lists patch types without context.

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