patch_assembly

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions atomicity and a version note about returning 'status: not_implemented'. It fails to disclose side effects, permission needs, or what happens to the assembly. Critical behavioral details are missing.

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 short, but the version note is misplaced and not helpful. While it is concise, it sacrifices clarity and completeness. The structure could be improved by separating behavior and version info.

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 complexity of patching an assembly with multiple parameters including a legal confirmation field, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks essential context about what constitutes an operation, the effect of confirm_legal, and return value expectations.

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% and the tool description adds no explanation for any of the 4 parameters (path, operations, dst, confirm_legal). The 'operations' array of objects is left completely undefined, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding.

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?

Description states 'Apply a list of operations atomically', which identifies the action and atomicity, but it is vague about what types of operations or what resource is patched. The version note about 'not_implemented' adds confusion. It distinguishes from siblings by naming 'patch_assembly' but does not differentiate behavior.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nop_method or replace_method_body. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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