il_patch_copy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the source project is not modified and that invalid caches/stale artifacts are moved to quarantine. It does not describe failure modes, return semantics, permission requirements, or behavior when old_text is not unique or expected_sha256 mismatches.

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 one dense sentence with no filler; the key constraint, action, and side effect are all present. The long Chinese clause chain makes it slightly less scannable than separate short sentences, but it earns its length.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the high-level outcome and a key side effect, and the schema covers parameter details. It omits expected return values, failure behavior, and how quarantine relates to the quarantine parameter, leaving it minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces concepts like 'unique match' and quarantine, but it does not add meaning beyond the parameter schema, which already documents old_text uniqueness, dest non-existence, and expected_sha256 concurrency protection.

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 concrete operation: generate a new project copy with a unique-matching text patch applied, without modifying the source project, and quarantine stale/invalid artifacts. This is specific about verb and resource, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate sibling tools like ld_to_il_copy or native_compile_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 phrase '在不改动源工程的前提下' implies the tool is intended for scenarios where the source must remain untouched while a patched copy is produced. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not compare against sibling copy/patch tools, so an agent must infer the appropriate selection context.

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