Stage Eden Session Patch

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it discloses atomicity ('Atomically copy'), prerequisite (stopped session), and safety constraints (rejected roots). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful operational detail.

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 consists of two clear, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is stated first, followed by critical restrictions.

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 the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it covers the action, destination, prerequisites, and safety constraints. It does not detail failure behaviors or overwrite semantics, but these are not essential with the available structured data.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of patch_path ('unpacked RomFS/ExeFS/cheat patch') and session_id ('stopped managed session'), but it does not describe application_id or the optional label parameter, leaving gaps.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Atomically copy an unpacked RomFS/ExeFS/cheat patch into a stopped managed session's isolated user/load directory.' This specific verb+resource+destination distinguishes it from sibling session management tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: it targets a stopped managed session and specifies rejected target types ('default profile cannot be targeted; links and key, firmware, NAND, or save-like roots are rejected'). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the restrictions give practical usage boundaries.

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