Card Patch Apply

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: the patch is 'surgical' and field-scoped, and it avoids regenerating the whole batch. It does not say whether the patch mutates in place or returns a new draft, what happens on invalid or unknown fields, or whether results are validated or persisted.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by value proposition and then parameter notes. Nothing is wasted, though the trailing parameter gloss reads as a terse addendum rather than integrated guidance.

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 not be explained, and the two required parameters are acknowledged. The remaining gap is patch semantics — the expected structure of the 'updates' dictionary and error behavior — which is the core thing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly.

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 0% — the schema only declares both parameters as plain strings — so the description must compensate, and it partially does by explaining card_json is a CardDraft JSON string and patch_json is a JSON string containing an 'updates' dictionary. The internal shape of that 'updates' dictionary (field names? operations? nesting?) is left unspecified.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Apply a surgical patch or field updates to a single CardDraft JSON object.' The phrase 'repairing a failed card in isolation without regenerating the entire batch' contrasts it with batch-level patching siblings such as batch_patch_draft, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Allows repairing a failed card in isolation without regenerating the entire batch' gives an implied when-to-use scenario (fixing one failed card). However, it never states when to prefer a batch tool, what prerequisites exist, or what to do if the patch fails, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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