st.mvu.chat_state.patch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a nontrivial behavioral requirement (`Requires confirm: true`) and a defaulting behavior, which is useful. Still, it does not explain what the patch mutates, whether changes are reversible, how `unset` vs `updates` interact, or what happens on failure, leaving several operational traits hidden.

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 sentence with no filler or repetition. The most decision-relevant facts—action, target, default behavior, and confirmation requirement—are front-loaded and concise.

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 eight parameters, a nested `updates` object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It leaves required parameters, mutation semantics, confirmation flow, and result behavior undefined, so an agent would struggle to invoke this tool confidently without external knowledge.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for eight undocumented parameters, but it only touches on `index` ('defaulting to the latest message') and `confirm`. Required parameters `avatar` and `fileName` are completely unexplained, and nested `updates` / `unset` semantics are absent. This is a significant gap for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 names a specific verb ('Patch'), a specific resource ('MVU runtime stat_data'), and a concrete unit of work ('one chat message'). It also adds a meaningful default behavior ('defaulting to the latest message') that distinguishes the tool from generic patch tools. No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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?

It clearly states the default target (latest message) and the critical precondition that `confirm: true` is required. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool over siblings like `st.chat.message.edit` or `st.mvu.chat_state.inspect`, so it misses the 'when-not/alternatives' level.

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