Batch Patch Draft

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the patch is written to a persistent staging file, but says nothing about validation of the patch, what happens if card_index is out of range, whether the write is atomic or reversible, or whether the file must already exist.

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 purpose is stated first and the parameter notes are terse, labeled, and scannable. There is no filler; the only weakness is that the parameter notes are compressed to near-fragment form.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema description coverage across four parameters, the definition omits timeout_s and all safety/failure semantics, leaving real gaps an agent would need before calling it.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does document three of four parameters meaningfully: accepted staging_path forms (drafts.jsonl or .staging_{batch_id}/drafts.jsonl), 0-based card_index, and that patch_json carries an 'updates' key. The timeout_s parameter is entirely undocumented, and the internal shape of 'updates' remains unexplained.

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 names a concrete verb and resource: applying a patch to a CardDraft inside a persistent batch staging file, and even identifies the file forms involved. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the similarly named sibling card_patch_apply, leaving the agent to infer whether this is the batch/multi-card variant.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives such as card_patch_apply for single-card edits. The only usage signal is the incidental phrase 'within a persistent batch staging file', which hints at staging-file workflows but gives no selection criteria.

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