symbols_patch_copy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful traits: a separate process reads back results, machine code must match before/after, and only a new copy is delivered. It does not state what happens on mismatch or explicitly guarantee the source tree is untouched, but it is substantially transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Each clause contributes either to what the tool does, how it verifies, or what it outputs.

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?

The schema richly documents all five parameters, including index=-1 semantics, expected_sha256 source, and the nonexistent-dest requirement. The description adds the critical verification and copy-only behavior. Failure-mode behavior is unspecified, but the information needed to invoke the tool correctly is essentially present.

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 the add-versus-modify intent and the copy/verification workflow, but it adds no per-parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clear verb and resource: '新增或修改全局符号' (add or modify global symbols), and distinguishes itself from read-only siblings like symbols_read by specifying separate-process read-back and copy-only delivery. An agent can tell what this tool does and how it differs.

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 the tool is for modifying global symbols while producing a fresh copy, but it never explicitly says when to prefer it over alternatives such as symbols_read, il_patch_copy, or project_build_copy. It gives no when-not-to-use guidance.

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