replace_method_body

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

Discloses a key behavioral fact: the tool returns 'not_implemented' as of v2.8.0. However, with no annotations, it fails to describe other important behaviors (e.g., whether it modifies files, need for permissions, error handling).

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. First sentence is the core purpose. The second sentence is a version note. Could be more efficient by integrating parameter details instead.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what IL bytes should look like, the role of 'confirm_legal', error conditions, or side effects. The agent lacks context to use it 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% and the description adds no information about parameters (path, method_fqn, new_il_b64, dst, confirm_legal). The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which may be insufficient for correct usage.

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 clearly states the action ('Replace a method body') and resource ('with caller-supplied IL bytes'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like nop_method and patch_assembly. However, the note about returning 'not_implemented' introduces ambiguity about whether the tool currently functions.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no when-not-to-use advice. The note about v2.8.0 hints at a limitation but does not provide clear usage direction.

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