Aplicar patch no RPO

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

The description matches the destructiveHint annotation by noting it's a deploy operation that changes the environment. It adds useful behavioral context about default newer-only application and the optional override.

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 concise with three sentences, each adding essential information. It is front-loaded with the core action and context, with no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, destructive annotation, and parameter count, the description covers the core purpose, default behavior, and prerequisite validation. It provides sufficient information for an AI agent, though error conditions are not mentioned.

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 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior for aplicarAntigos and the file types for arquivoPatch, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 applies a patch to the RPO as a deploy operation that alters the environment. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tds_patch_validate by recommending validation beforehand.

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 explains the default behavior (only newer fonts) and how to force old fonts with aplicarAntigos=true. It recommends using tds_patch_validate first, providing clear context for usage, though it does not explicitly state when not to use.

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