Validate and patch multiple files with non-overlapping edits; only after all checks succeed, create a new project copy that isolates old artifacts.
一次核对多文件、多处非重叠补丁；成功才发布副本，隔离旧产物并核对其余文件。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dest | Yes | 源工程之外、尚不存在的新目标目录 | |
| patches | Yes | 按文件组织的原哈希和 edits；所有匹配基于修改前文本，禁止重叠 | |
| project | Yes | 含唯一 HCP 索引的完整工程目录 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful details: the copy is published only after success, old artifacts are isolated, and remaining files are verified. This goes well beyond a generic patch/copy statement, though it stops short of describing exact failure modes or source-modification guarantees.
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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the main action, then adds essential success semantics without filler. Every clause earns its place.
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 three required parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool: it explains the batch scope, non-overlap requirement, success-gated publishing, and artifact isolation. It does not explicitly describe return values or detailed failure behavior, but those are secondary when the schema already covers parameter meaning.
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 100%, and the input schema already documents all three parameters with constraints and meanings, including dest being a nonexistent directory and patches being organized by file with expected_sha256 and edits. The prose description adds no extra parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action: verify multiple files and multiple non-overlapping patches in one pass, then publish a copy only on success. The 'batch' and 'multi-file/multi-patch' wording clearly distinguishes it from single-patch sibling tools like il_patch_copy.
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 implies this tool is for batch scenarios with multiple files and non-overlapping patches, but it never explicitly names when to choose this tool over alternatives like il_patch_copy, nor does it list exclusions or fallback conditions. The usage context is present but must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.