file_patch

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

No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, how replacements are handled (e.g., first occurrence or all), or error conditions like missing oldString. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence). While it is front-loaded, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is not verbose, but under-specification reduces overall effectiveness.

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 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide essential context such as behavior on missing file, replacement scope, or response format. It is incomplete for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the three parameters. It does not explain if oldString supports regex, whether newString can be empty, or how path is resolved. The agent must infer everything from names alone.

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 '局部替换修改' clearly indicates the tool performs partial replacement on a file, which distinguishes it from file_write (whole file overwrite) and file_delete. It is specific enough for a simple patch operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like file_write or command_exec. There is no mention of prerequisites or suitability, leaving the agent without decision context.

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