apply_patch

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds the 'configured workspace' scope and a dry-run safety recommendation, which are useful behavioral details. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first covers the action, scope, and format; the second delivers a concrete safety guideline.

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 two-parameter destructive tool, the description conveys operations, workspace scope, format, and a safe invocation strategy. It does not describe return values or exact error behavior, but with no output schema and destructiveHint already annotated, the description is sufficiently 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 baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces that patch uses Codex patch format and suggests dry_run for uncertain contexts, but it does not materially expand the parameter semantics already present in the schema.

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?

States specific verbs (add, update, move, delete) and a clear resource (files in the configured workspace). The mention of 'Codex patch format' distinguishes it from sibling file-editing tools like write_file, edit_file, and update_file.

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?

Provides explicit operational guidance: run with dry_run first when context lines are uncertain. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the patch-format framing and dry-run instruction make the intended usage clear enough.

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